Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE BUSINESS

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL

As amended, Considered; to be read the the Third time.

LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL 
(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the number of unemployed people to decline.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): Given the world situation and the uncompetitive state of parts of British industry, unemployment is bound to rise over the next few months. I cannot usefully forecast when it will fall.

Mr. Dormand: I thought that the Secretary of State might make reference to the timely drop in the figures today, although I understand that the trend in the seasonally adjusted figures continue upwards. That is confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman's answer and I am pleased

to note his assent to that view. Does he not agree that the most important thing—and the most distressing aspect of the present situation—is the continuing increase in the number of long-term unemployed? In those circumstances, will not the Government, at long last, consider reversing their present catastrophic policies?

Mr. Prior: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problems of the long-term unemployed are bad and that the numbers are far too high. We are trying to help with the special temporary employment programme. Perhaps the best thing we can do for the long-term unemployed is to get interest rates down.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend despair of getting the unions to see that increases in wages unaccompanied by increases in production must, inevitably, mean job losses?

Mr. Prior: I think that we have to go on and on talking about this and bringing home to everyone, trade unionists and non-trade unionists, that unless we can squeeze inflation out of the economy—wages are one of the important factors contributing to the high rate of inflation—we shall have to live with much higher levels of unemployment than are acceptable to the British people.

Mr. John Grant: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the special temporary employment programme when speaking of the long-term unemployed but the Government have cut the special temporary employment programme. When will the Secretary of State stop wringing his hands about the long-term unemployed and take action to deal with the problem?

Mr. Prior: One of the extraordinary things about the special temporary employment programme was that, until recently, the people for whom it was meant to cater were the long-term unemployed. On the whole, they were not using the programme and it has to be filled by other people. Since we cut back the scheme to the development areas, special development areas and other special areas, the number of eligible people going into the scheme has increased considerably.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject of unemployment comes up in several questions later.

Day of Action

Mr. Renten: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people (a) who voluntarily refused to work on 14 May, and (b) who were unable to get to work, and thus involuntarily lost a day's pay, through political action taken by others.

Mr. Needham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost on 14 May.

Mr. Prior: My Department's statistics of industrial stoppages relate only to terms and conditions of work, and exclude political action such as that on 14 May. We cannot make a close estimate of numbers of people involved, but such information as is available suggests that more than 90 per cent. of the work force went to work last Wednesday.

Mr. Renten: Bearing in mind that the day of action certainly did not help to save any jobs or help to sell a single ton of British steel what consultation or measures of co-operation has my right hon. Friend in mind to discuss with trade union leaders in order to put over the point that jobs will be created in Britain only by new industry or will be saved only by higher productivity or more competitive output?

Mr. Prior: I am always ready to talk to trade union leaders and trade unionists at any time. One of the points that I constantly make, whether in the National Economic Development Council or in other places, is similar to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Needham: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said, will he consider instituting a new category of days lost in furtherance of political disputes as distinct from days lost in furtherance of trade disputes? Would not that enable the country to tell the difference between real and bogus industrial action?

Mr. Prior: I should prefer no days to be lost from either occurrence. I certainly hope that the experience of 14 May will mean that we do not have political strikes, which are new to this country. We should seek to solve our political differences in the House and not outside.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the people who

stayed at work by no means wanted their action interpreted as a confirmation of their support for the Government's policies? Does he accept that people who make such an interpretation do a disservice to the solution of the problems which must be on the Secretary of State's mind?

Mr. Prior: The sooner we put 14 May behind us as a nation and learn to live and work together the quicker the country will emerge from its problems.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some bus drivers in the West Midland were warned by the local branch of the Transport and General Workers Union that if they turned up for work on 14 May they would lose their union cards and, therefore, their jobs? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the Employment Bill does not really protect anybody from losing a job and that until something is done about that the tyranny about which most of the country is complaining will continue?

Mr. Prior: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that. One must ask whether people did lose their union cards. In any case, they should look carefully at their rule books because expulsion under such circumstances is probably not in accordance with union rules. Under the Bill, as it is to be presented this afternoon in another place, there are at least unfair dismissal provisions for people who are excluded or expelled unfairly from a trade union. I believe that they will do a great deal to put the matter right. One of the main practices of extremists, when they want to take people out on strike, is to say that union cards will be taken away. We must refute that under all circumstances.

Unemployment Trends

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's analysis of the underlying unemployment trends in Great Britain in the current year and in 1981.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): Unemployment has been rising in recent months and most forecasts agree that it will continue to rise in the near future. Changes in unemployment in the future depend


on a number of factors, the most important being the level of pay settlements and developments in world trade.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Under-Secretary aware that all the signs are that by mid-term in the Government's life unemployment will still be rising in manufacturing industry in the most productive parts of the country, such as that which I represent? Is not that a total condemnation of the Government's strategy?

Mr. Lester: It certainly is not a total condemnation of the Government's strategy. Our strategy is the only one which is likely to provide secure employment in the future.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that employment trends will improve if people are encouraged to retire earlier? Therefore, will the Government consider introducing earlier voluntary retirement?

Mr. Lester: he job release scheme is designed to that end. The scheme is reviewed annually and it can be extended if needed.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Northern region, which has always had more than its fair share of unemployment, is rapidly becoming a disaster area? Will he concede that it is high time that the Government did more in terms of temporary employment schemes, and so on?

Mr. Lester: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in the Northern area on Saturday, presenting awards to apprentices who are looking ahead to the future in the Northern area in their professions. I recognise that there are great difficulties in the regions. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise. Our policy is to try to assist the regions in terms of infrastructure and by concentrating our aid. That is the only way to help the regions when the economy revives.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: When my hon. Friend is considering unemployment trends will he make an estimate of what level it would have reached if Labour's electioneering scheme for vast deficit-financed public expenditure had been adhered to, with the inevitable consequence of even higher inflation and even more punitive interest rates?

Mr. Lester: Some of us can remember that in the first year of the last Labour Government—1975–76—unemployment was increased by 478,000.

TUC and CBI

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to have further consultations with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry about the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

Mr. Prior: I have had a number of discussions with both the TUC and CBI about improving industrial relations. If representatives of these organisations wish to discuss their ideas with me I am always ready to devote time to further meetings.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a long-term improvement in industrial relations it is important that employees, especially in large organisations, have a greater say about the destiny of the firm for which they work and their conditions of employment? In view of the reluctance of management and unions to do anything about that, has my right hon. Friend any proposals to encourage greater employee participation?

Mr. Prior: I constantly urge employers to involve their work forces more in the decisions which affect them. I am urgently considering whether we can take further initiatives to get that message across.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Secretary of State study as a possible initiative—as apparently did the late Sir John Methven—ideas about market socialism which have been put across by various people?

Mr. Prior: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by "market socialism." If he is referring to cooperatives and co-operative ventures, I tell him that we have always given our support to such enterprises.

Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is open to the TUC and the CBI to make representations to him before he publishes draft codes of practice on improvements in industrial relations? Does he expect to publish any such codes before the autumn?

Mr. Prior: Yes. I welcome any views on codes dealing with the closed shop


and picketing that we are likely to bring forward. We shall seek to introduce draft codes or perhaps codes which can be considered and consulted upon before the Summer Recess. The full codes will be introduced in the House in the autumn.

Unemployment (Assisted Areas)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what amount he estimates unemployment has risen since May 1979 in the assisted areas of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jim Lester: Between May 1979 and April 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in the assisted areas of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland increased by 146,299.

Mr. Jones: Will not these ominous figures get worse? Is the Under-Secretary aware that in Flint, which is an assisted area, male unemployment stands in excess of 32 per cent? Does he accept that the assisted areas are vulnerable under the Government's current economic policy?

Mr. Lester: Assisted areas have been vulnerable for the last 20 years. That is why they were made into assisted areas. Surely the hon. Gentleman will give credit to the Government who declared Shotton a special development area last December. The Welsh Development Agency plans to spend £61·8 million on land and factory building in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Under-Secretary realise that the calamitous unemployment rate in Wales is hitting young people in particular? Is he aware that 40 per cent. of the unemployed in Wales are 24 years old or younger? What prospects does he hold out for school leavers?

Mr. Lester: One of the reasons why we expanded the youth opportunities programme was to deal with that serious underlying problem. We continue to review all our measures annually to reflect such situations.

Mr. Marland: The Forest of Dean is not an assisted area, but because of serious rising unemployment there, will my hon. Friend join me in trying to persuade the Department of Industry to establish some workshop units in that area?

Mr. Lester: I have enough problems in my own Department without answering

for the Department of Industry. However, I shall examine what my hon. Friend says with the Secretary of State for Industry.

Unemployment (Mexborough and Wombwell)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males and females, respectively, were registered as unemployed on the latest available date at the Mexborough and Wombwell employment exchanges.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May, 1,424 males and 807 females were registered as unemployed in the Mexborough employment office area. The corresponding figures for Wombwell were 631 and 327. The figures are provisional.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that among the unemployed in those areas there are many who have a reasonable working life ahead of them but who are condemned to be unemployed for the rest of their lives? Will be bear in mind that the largest section being adversely affected is the young? Is he aware that when the National Coal Board has employed those that it needs, the remainder have no hope of finding reasonable employment? Does he also realise that the girls are in a worse position than the boys because there is no work available for them? When will he do something about that—not only by designating the area as a special development area, but by bringing in industry?

Mr. Lester: I accept the seriousness of the problem facing young people. However, we should put the matter into perspective. In the last academic year 700,000 youngsters were available for work. The figures today show that 46,000 are without jobs. In the youth opportunities programme, under the guarantees, of those youngsters who have been unemployed for more than six months only 700 have not been offered places. While we agree about the seriousness of the position, we must put it into perspective.

Unemployment

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment.

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: At 8 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,509,191.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State say whether that figure of 1½ million unemployed—soon to be increased with the next batch of school leavers—represents official policy, showing that the Government are on target, or does he regard it as a failure of Government policy? Does he agree that the tax revenue forgone from those people, had they been productively employed, in addition to the unemployment benefit that they are receiving, is the largest single component of the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Prior: The figures represent the facts of economic life in Britain and the failure of successive Governments to put the matter right.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the May unemployment figures are the highest since the war, and that they are the highest seasonally adjusted figures since records began? Since the Government were prepared to do a U-turn yesterday in accordance with the wishes of the House will he try to achieve a U-turn in the Government's economic and financial policies which will, unless changed, lead to a serious crisis in employment in the years ahead?

Mr. Prior: The policies of the previous Labour Administration, which doubled unemployment in five years and left an unemployment figure that was unacceptably high at the peak of economic activity in 1978–79, have left Britain a serious problem with which we have to deal now.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of vacancies remains unfilled, and that a considerable number of the unemployed are voluntary unemployed? Many of them cannot afford to work. Has my right hon. Friend made any progress in the investigation that he promised on this matter some months ago?

Mr. Prior: There is a mismatch, with jobs being available in some parts of the

country and the unemployed not being prepared to fill them. For the most part, there are a number of people who wish to have the jobs that are available. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have given a great deal of attention during the past few months to the points that he has raised, and have sought to do as much as they can about them. I am certain that the only answer is greater economic activity to reduce the numbers.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not about time that the Minister stopped using phrases about unemployment and its causes relating to world and technical matters? Is it not a fact that one of the first actions of the Government was to remove exchange controls, thereby allowing money to be invested abroad? Is it not the Conservative Government who have cut public expenditure left, right and centre, thereby reducing the ability of manufacturers to purchase as many goods? Is it not the Government who are changing the leasing controls in the Budget, which will result in a manufacturer in my constituency losing about 40 or 50 jobs in the container industry?

Mr. Prior: If we followed the economic policies of the hon. Gentleman we should have far higher unemployment than we have now.

Mr. Bulmer: Since increases in pay that far outstrip any increase in output are a major cause of unemployment, will my right hon Friend say whether he sees any further justification for retaining the Clegg Commission?

Mr. Prior: On the subject of the Clegg Commission, all that I wish to say today is that it made a very serious mistake indeed over teachers' salaries. That is bound to be a factor in the consideration of its future that is now taking place. I do not wish to go further than that.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State recall that before the general election he said in quite categoric terms that he would set out to reduce the number of unemployed? When is that likely to happen? If it is not to happen, will he admit that he seriously misled the country at that time?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I have ever misled the country on that subject. I was one of the few who, when the previous Labour Administration said that


they would reduce unemployment to 700,000 by the end of 1979, said that that was an unrealistically low figure. I believe that, given the period of the lifetime of the Government, we shall do considerably better than the Opposition did when they were in Government.

Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that applicants for compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 are being answered as quickly as possible; and if he will make a statement on those cases which are causing difficulty.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Yes, in all the circumstances. The necessary investigations are requiring very protracted work. Out of the 2,533 applications made before the end of 1979 fewer than a quarter are now outstanding. Over 300 claims made since then have also been cleared. Overall, the main problems have arisen over the requirement that all relevant employers must have ceased to carry on business.

Mr. Wigley: Will not the Minister accept that a figure of 600 outstanding claimants since before last January is an unsatisfactory level, given that the measure has been enacted for almost a year? In circumstances where all the evidence is not forthcoming, will he give the benefit of the doubt to marginal cases? Will he say anything about those who are employed in quarries which may have employed them for only two or three years out of a total quarrying working lifetime of 20 or 30 years? Is he in a position to make a statement on that matter?

Mr. Mayhew: The difficulty that we face with the statutory definition of a relevant employer is that we must satisfy ourselves that he was the person by whom the claimant was employed at any time during the period that he was developing the disease, and against whom he might have had a claim for damages in respect of the disablement. There is no such employer still in business. I have reconsidered the extent to which the Act permits some discretion, and it is proving

possible to adopt a slightly more favourable approach than had at first seemed necessary.

Mr. Needham: Will my hon. and learned Friend please remind the House about the circumstances in which the Bill reached the statute book, and what exactly happened under the previous Administration with regard to these matters?

Mr. Mayhew: The Act was passed by the House, having been introduced by the previous Labour Government in the very last days of their Administration. Not the least of the difficulties of its application arose from the very short consideration that the House was able to give to the Bill.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the point that he made is correct? The Act has many shortcomings. Is he aware that the pneumoconiosis medical panels have rejected the medical advice of skilled doctors, consultants and pathologists? Those panels should be abolished. Does he agree that the decision of the doctors and consultants in mining areas should be accepted as evidence of pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have answered that question in the past, and that the pneumoconiosis medical panels are not the responsibility of my Department. He knows also the relevance of their decisions under the terms of the Act passed by the previous Administration.

Textile and Footwear Workers (Retraining)

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a special scheme of retraining for textile and footwear workers who have recently lost their jobs.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am aware of the problems facing redundant textile and footwear workers, and training facilities from which they may benefit are currently available under the training opportunities scheme. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that these facilities are expected to be adequate to meet the retraining needs of these workers. However, if my hon. Friend has evidence of particular training needs which


may arise that cannot be met from existing provision, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

Mr. Trippier: I recognise that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to be helpful. Does he accept that it is extremely difficult for workers in these two industries to transfer to other employment at the age of, say, 50 or between 50 and retirement age? In view of the special pressures on these two industries, would it not be possible for a special scheme to be devised to help them?

Mr. Lester: The problem mentioned by my hon. Friend applies to all workers in their fifties. I am assured that many of the courses available are designed to take that into account. As I have already said, if my hon. Friend has any evidence of special need, I am prepared to consider it.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that the textile and clothing industry is likely to lose 70,000 workers in the next 12 months? In West Yorkshire alone 4,000 or 5,000 workers in the textile industry will probably lose their jobs. Will the Minister assure us that he will look again at the question of selective assistance to industrial areas which are losing jobs in the textile industry and that he will bring industry as well as training to those areas and, therefore, hope to the workers?

Mr. Lester: The Department of Industry, to which this question is really addressed, has already agreed, over the three-year wind-down of the regional areas, to look carefully before any alterations take place and to take into account changes that have occurred since. I am sure that will be taken into account.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier)? Is he aware that thousands of people are losing their jobs each month in the textile industry and that the existing retraining schemes are totally inadequate to provide sufficient places for the numbers being made unemployed? Will he try to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade to take action to ensure that the textile industry survives rather than have to provide costly retraining

schemes for those who are made redundant?

Mr. Lester: None of us can be unaware of the problems of the textile industry, not least because of the effective representations of my hon. Friend. As I have already suggested, I am informed that training places exist for those who seek them. If there is any evidence that that is not the case, naturally we shall look into it.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Retraining facilities are necessary, but is the Minister aware that the real danger is that there will be no firms to receive people, even if they are retrained? Is he further aware that it is not only the textile industry that is suffering badly, but light engineering, building and every industry throughout Lancashire?

Mr. Lester: Having travelled the area quite frequently, I cannot accept that the situation is as serious as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. I understand that the textile industry is already the most protected industry in the country, even though it is experiencing these severe problems. We are all concerned about it. But it is a question of balancing the interests of the home market against the interests of the export market, in which the textile industry does very well.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that, despite the helpful answers that he gives to those lion. Members in Tory marginals, the textile industry is being destroyed by the Departments of Trade and Industry? Will he now acknowledge that his Department is simply acquiescing in the destruction of a great industry?

Mr. Lester: The textile industry is being destroyed by customers in this country who are apparently going to the shops and not buying British textiles.

Northern Region

Dr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total number of people out of work in the Northern region on the latest available figures; and what plans he has to reduce the level of unemployment in the region.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May the provisional number of people registered as


unemployed in the Northern region was 128,880.
As we have already suggested, changes in unemployment patterns in the future depend on a number of factors, not least being pay settlements, productivity and correct design of good products that are saleable.

Dr. Clark: Does the Minister realise that that represents 9·3 per cent. of the insured population, which encompasses levels of 19 per cent. male unemployment in South Shields? Will he take the opportunity now to answer the second part of my question: what plans has he to reduce the level of unemployment in the Northern region?

Mr. Lester: I accept the figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I was in his area only last weekend. The spending policy of the previous Labour Government did not provide the answers that the hon. Gentleman needs. We are trying to concentrate aid where it is most needed, to reduce Government demands and to create a genuine cycle of employment through real jobs, through people buying real products.

Mr. Urwin: Does the Minister realise that the figure of 9·3 per cent. represents half as much again as the national average and is the highest regional percentage, with the exception of Northern Ireland? Does he accept that it is time that the Government changed their economic and industrial policies in favour of the under-privileged areas of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lester: We have already changed our policies to try to concentrate on those under-privileged areas. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should at least admit that we have been successful in obtaining shipbuilding orders through Government assistance in those areas.
There is a serious underlying structural change in the Northern region as bad as anywhere. That has been going on for many more years than this Government have been in power, and we all want to see an end to it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the influence of pay settlements is one aspect of increased unemployment, a matter which has not

been mentioned by any Opposition Members all afternoon?

Mr. Lester: One of the anomalies in this country is that the highest areas for wages outside London are the Northern region and the North-West.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that Government Departments which have promised orders to British shipbuilders have not yet placed those orders with the specific yards that will build them? Will he speak to his colleagues in other Departments which have these orders ready to be put to shipbuilding yards and make sure that they are put immediately to help to alleviate the unemployment problems in the Northern region?

Mr. Lester: I shall do anything that I possibly can to be helpful.

Employment Agencies (Recruiting Practices)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of evidence that employment agencies recruit from overseas resident domestics who have dependent children without informing them that they are liable to be removed for failing to declare such dependent children, if he will conduct an inquiry into the practices of these agencies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jim Lester: If the hon. Member will let me have the evidence to which he refers, I shall be pleased to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister accept that several hundred of these unfortunate women, who have come to this country without appropriate warnings from his Department, are now under possible threat of expulsion? Should he not talk to Home Office Ministers and ensure that these women are treated with leniency?

Mr. Lester: I understand that it is a question, not of having appropriate warnings but of people coming to this country on the basis that they have no dependants and no children and, having subsequently got the right to live here, finding that they have got children and dependants. That is the problem.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in his answer he makes the first mistake? According to reports that I have read, the people to whom the question refers are ignorant of our customs and would not be asked at the point of reception whether they had dependants. In those circumstances I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these people find themselves alone and in grave difficulties. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether more compassion and understanding can be injected into this serious problem?

Mr. Lester: As I have already suggested, if any hon. Member cares to give me the evidence, I shall be pleased to have it investigated.

Industrial Training Boards

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of industrial training boards.

Mr. Prior: I welcome the fundamental review that the Manpower Services Commission is now making of our industrial training arrangements generally, including the operations of the industrial training boards, and look forward to receiving the report of its review in July. The Government will then consider what action needs to be taken.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. It seems that there is the possibility that the Government will take action. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that in my constituency many small employers of labour, particularly of young people and apprentices, resent the manner in which the industrial training boards enforce petty restrictions upon them? Will he bear in mind, when the report of the review is received, that considerable pressure is building up among employers for the abolition of the industrial training boards?

Mr. Prior: I should like to have chapter and verse of what my hon. Friend has stated about the problems of small companies. I agree that we would be silly not to face the fact that considerable pressure is building up among certain employers about the attitude of the industrial training boards.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that industrial training projects, to which I have referred before, are being hampered as a result of the criteria laid down for the training of young people? Will he use his good offices to approach the Manpower Services Commission with a view to changing the criteria so as to allow indexed training projects to come into force at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Prior: I shall certainly consult the Manpower Services Commission to see whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman's point

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has my right hon. Friend studied the staggering arrangements being made for the chief executives of these boards, one of whom is apparently earning more than anyone else in Whitehall, and receiving an index-linked salary as well as an index-linked pension? Is it not time that the contracts of these gentlemen were revised or, preferably, withdrawn?

Mr. Prior: I have studied the matter We have been studying it for some considerable time. Unfortunately, these index-linked agreements were already in force when we came into office. They apply to one man. Like our predecessors, we are bound by that undertaking. These are matters that bring the boards into great disrepute.

Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that many industrial training boards are now running out of money at a time when employers are cutting back on training? Is it not time that the Government took action?

Mr. Prior: I see no reason why industrial training boards, if they are doing a good job, should be running out of money. They can get a levy from employers, and they do. There is no earthly reason for thinking that the industrial training boards should be short of money.

North-West England

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the latest unemployment figures, and percentage rates, for the United Kingdom and the North-West of England.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May, the provisional number registered as unemployed


and the unemployment rates for the United Kingdom were 1,509,191 and 6·2 per cent., and for the North-West region, 226,274 and 7·9 per cent.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's policies not a week goes past without an announcement of major closures and redundancies, not only in the textile and footwear industries, but right across the manufacturing heartlands of the the North-West? Will he say by how much more unemployment in the North-West has to rise before the Government change their policy and start to assist industry rather than destroy it?

Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman talks about Government policies that mean massive spending. The previous Government doubled unemployment by pursuing just that approach. Unemployment is increasing in the area due to world prices and the overall situation in the economy. It is not due to Government policies.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend agree that if the attitudes announced by Mr. Basnett yesterday were translated into actions this would substantially increase unemployment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lester: There is no question about that. The attitude that we want to see reflected is that of Sir Michael Edwardes, who said in a recent speech that we wanted positive co-operation to produce profitable jobs in British industry.

Mr. James Lamond: When the Minister said a few minutes ago that he understood that the textile industry enjoyed a high level of protection was he aware of the letter sent by Mr. Bob Lloyd-Jones, director-general of the British Textile Employers' Association, to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointing out that the greatest exporting force that the world has ever known—the textile industry—is on the point of extinction? Is he aware that it is nonsense, according to Mr. Bob Lloyd-Jones, for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the industry enjoys any measure of effective protection?

Mr. Lester: The temporary short-time working scheme was kept by my Department particularly because of the needs of the textile industry. The other protection

is a matter for the Department of Trade. The hon. Gentleman will know the views that it has put forward. This is a question, as I have said already, of balancing the interests of the home market against the effective exports that the textile industry is able to achieve.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of changes in the Government's regional aid policy, many areas of the North-West will not be able to obtain assistance from EEC sources? Will my hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to see whether a formula can be devised whereby Britain can claim its rightful portion of EEC aid for industry, particularly in the North-West, which is suffering heavy redundancies because of the problems facing the textile and footwear industries?

Mr. Lester: I understand that a system is already devised and that the Department of Industry will consider carefully all changes in the light of changes since the original decisions were made.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom at the latest available date; and what are the figures for women and young people, respectively.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,509,191 of whom 460,639 were females. An age analysis was last made in April when the number under 20 years of age was 258,210 out of a total of 1.522,927.

Mr. Hughes: Are not these figures reaching near catastrophic proportions, certainly in such areas as South Wales? Do not the Government think that they have done enough damage to the economy already, particularly regarding unemployment? Have not sanctions against Iran disrupted our trade and, therefore, employment prospects?

Mr. Lester: The figures cause everyone concern. Where we disagree is about the methods for bringing them down. We believe that the figures will be brought down by making British industry more competitive through products that sell. That is the only way, in the end, to provide jobs.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (PERMANENT SECRETARY)

Ql. Mr. Paimer: asked the Prime Minister what are the functions of the permanent secretary in the Department of Energy; and whether experience in diplomacy and Oriental languages is a necessary or desirable qualification for this post.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The functions are similar to those of the official head of any Department, namely to be responsible for the efficient management of the Department and to give assistance to Ministers in carrying out their duties. Proficiency in languages, including those spoken in some major oil-producing countries, although not a necessary qualification, is a distinct asset both in bilateral discussions and international conferences.

Mr. Palmer: With all due respect to the talents of Sir Donald Maitland, was not this a special opportunity to appoint someone as head of a Department whose mind has been sharpened by the harsh disciplines of science and engineering? Why do we go on supposing that to know everything about nothing in particular is a good thing?

The Prime Minister: I shall reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that, although he and I have either engineering or scientific qualifications, this necessarily puts us above our fellows in administering Departments, although some of us, of course, would claim to be more equal than others. With regard to choosing an engineer or a scientist as head of that Department, there are, I am afraid, very few candidates available. I am convinced that we have chosen the best person to be permanent secretary of that Department.

Mr. Latham: When the permanent secretary deals with Middle Eastern oil producers does he stress to them that the general directive of Her Majesty's Government is that the State of Israel should continue to exist within secure and defensible borders?

The Prime Minister: This is always stressed whenever we are dealing with the future of the Middle East. Two things need to go ahead together—the recognition

of the right of Israel to exist behind secure boundaries alongside the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the appointment of an amateur with no training in science and technology might have been tolerable if she had not abolished the energy commission which would have been able to give the Secretary of State much-needed, good technical advice on matters within his responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary will receive excellent advice from well qualified scientific people.

NORTHERN REGION

Q2. Mr. Radice: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to the Northern region.

The Prime Minister: I shall do so next Friday.

Mr. Radice: Is the right hon. Lady aware that unemployment in the Northern region has risen every month since last November and that most people in the region believe that her Government just could not care less?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember his own Government's record of more than doubling the level of unemployment.

Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister take note of what is happening in the fishing ports of the North of England? Does she realise that the aid given so far to the industry simply will not last long enough for the fishing industry to survive until the next round of consultations is completed? Is she prepared to make substantial further aid available to the industry?

The Prime Minister: About £3 million was the amount required by the industry. Its distribution is being handled by the industry, and is being used partly for exploring further waters to which the fishing fleets can go. I recognise that there are particular difficulties facing fleets that fish in distant waters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food is in touch with the fishermen about that matter.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to talk to the Head of Government of Saudi Arabia—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman realises that this is not an open question.

Mr. Alexander: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be lucky later, but I cannot guarantee it.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the athletes who will go to the Olympic Games—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the Northern region.

Mr. Adley: I was referring to those athletes who come from the Northern region and who are a particularly strong part of our Olympic Games contingent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to try to twist a question into—[Interruption.] Order. Some of those who are shouting are among those who do this. An open question is fair game, but where it is a substantive question I hope that the House will play the game and try to have it that way.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Before the right hon. Lady goes to the Northern region on Friday, will she please get a decision from the Ministry of Defence on the order for 77 Chieftain tanks so that she can visit Vickers Elswick factory and tell the 350 workers who are now due for redundancy that they will not be made redundant because the order is there?

The Prime Minister: I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the decision will be ready before I go north on Friday.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 May.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Kurt Waldheim. This evening I shall be giving a dinner for Dr. Waldheim.

Mr. Straw: Does the Prime Minister agree that the decision of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to ban the "World in Action" programme on the Government communications headquarters in Hong Kong will suggest to many that serious breaches of security must be involved to justify such a cover-up? Will she say whether she initiated any investigation into these allegations and whether she will make a report to the House in due course?

The Prime Minister: The decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred had no such implications. It was a decision by the IBA, taken wholly independently for reasons which the IBA spelt out at the time it gave the decision.
With regard to the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers they were made some time ago, were taken seriously—as they should be—when they were made, were independently investigated and were found largely to be unfounded. But where they were well founded, the requisite improvements were put into operation.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: At a time when the British Government are, correctly, clobbering our growing trade with Iran, will my right hon. Friend point out to President Carter that the American people are again providing money to finance weapons for the Provisional Irish Republican Army at the same time as the American Administration are preventing the Royal Ulster Constabulary from having the handguns that it needs to return the fire?

The Prime Minister: We are being asked to do everything that we can to help our American allies to try to secure the release of the hostages. At the same time, I am very well aware that we asked them to supply a revolver type of pistol for the RUC. My hon. Friend will know that, on the first matter, the Government thought it best to lay orders which do not have retrospective effect on existing contracts, and that I would expect to be more formally announced shortly. With regard to the latter point, our request has not yet been turned down, but I am


grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us forcefully that it is still on the table.

Mr. Foot: Referring to the right hon. Lady's latest reply, may I ask whether she does not agree that the lesson of the last day or two is that U-turns can be conducted with great grace and skill? She is really very good at it when she tries, as we saw over Zimbabwe. May I ask her, therefore, the question which the whole country is asking? When will she start to reverse the policies which have led to the record increase in inflation under her Government?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment. I recognise that it comes from an expert in these matters. With regard to advice from him on matters such as increasing prices, I really do not think that he is an expert in telling us how to get these down, bearing in mind that he was a member of a Government who raised electricity prices by 169 per cent., who raised postal charges by 148 per cent., rail transport by 172 per cent.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Member's must listen to things that they do not wish to hear.

The Prime Minister: —food charges by 120 per cent., and rates and water charges by 148 per cent.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I may respond to the right hon. Lady and offer her a few more compliments. When will she be able to bring any prices down? So far, all that she has done is to push them up.

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the retail prices index will come down—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The right hon. Gentleman will know full well when it will come down, for a technical reason. It will come down in July-August. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now tell us when she thinks the RPI will come down to the figure at which it was when she assumed office?

The Prime Minister: just hope that it will not go up as high as it did under the right hon. Gentleman's Party before it comes down. It might come down faster if the right hon. Gentleman did not

urge unions to increase their pay claims and did not urge more spending on the Government, because to urge more spending on the Government is a way of urging more inflation.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the ACARD has published yet another excellent report on research and development in public purchasing affecting all Departments of State. Have the Cabinet considered the recommendations of that report? Apart from herself, which Minister will have responsibility for ensuring that they are carried out?

The Prime Minister: The Government's policy towards public purchasing has been announced from this Dispatch Box. Naturally, we wish all of those who make public purchases, as far as possible, to buy British, commensurate with getting the quality and delivery.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of tomorrow's visit by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, does not the right hon. Lady think it advisable, to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresentation, to reaffirm today that undertaking that she has given on other occasions—namely, that she does not contemplate discussing the internal constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom with external representatives of any Government or politicians?

The Prime Minister: The future of the constitutional affairs of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, this Government and this Parliament, and no one else.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the British Olympic Committee the revelation, in today's edition of The Times, of a former KGB official and TASS correspondent that several middle-ranking Soviet officials welcomed the call by President Carter for a boycott on the Olympic Games because they hoped that it would make the Kremlin think again about its disastrous decision to force itself upon Afghanistan? Will my right hon. Friend urge Sir Denis Follows to think again in the interests of the British public and the peace of the world?

The Prime Minister: I have today written again to Sir Denis Follows urging him to think again about the decision to


recommend British athletes to go to Moscow, especially in view of the American decision, the West German decision and the decisions of an increasing number of Governments. I believe that it would be advisable if our International Olympic Committee thought again.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Lady applaud the decision taken by the President of France to meet the Russian leaders? Would it not have been better, from the point of view of getting the hostages out of Iran and helping President Carter, if we had not been involved in the silly boycott of the Olympic Games?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated forcefully my view that one way to bring home to the Russian people the enormity of what has happened by their Government invading Afghanistan is to boycott the Olympic Games. That will bring it home to the Russian people more forcefully than anything else. With regard to the President of France, I am not responsible for the President of France.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think it fair, when 60 or 70 hon. Members are seeking to catch your eye, that the de facto Leader of the Opposition should rise in his place repeatedly and catch your eye on no fewer than three or four occasions? It makes it difficult for other hon. Members to get a word in edgeways.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with me before. As he and the House are aware, I have said that some extra latitude is allowed to official Opposition spokesmen.

Mr. Urwin: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take note of the fact that because of the tactics employed by one or two Conservative Members there were several hon. Members representing Northern region constituencies that are greatly affected by high unemployment who were unable to question the Minister on that issue?

Mr. Speaker: We must not use points of order to continue the argument.

TRANSPORT ACT 1962 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Speller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Transport to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to be re-opened on a trial basis.
It is a great pleasure to see the interest in the extension of our railway system so clearly portrayed by the full Benches around me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have even greater interest if he will wait for a moment. I hope that hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly.

Mr. Speller: It seems that we have rather more points in the House than there are in the British Rail network. On this journey I merely ask for leave to bring in the most minor and general of regulations. It will allow British Rail to re-open closed lines on an experimental basis without having to go through the costly and time-consuming procedure that now applies, quite correctly, should British Rail seek to close a line.
I cannot believe that any hon. Member does not agree that in times of fuel shortage, high fuel costs and, in the rural area from which I come, quite inadequate roads, it is better to move passengers by train rather than by car.
I accept that the provisions of the 1962 Act are entirely sensible, but should the House be willing to allow British Rail the expediency of being able to reopen a line and, if the experiment is a failure, to close it again—perhaps British Rail would think that 18 months is a reasonable period—I believe that there would be great hope for many small lines that have been killed off post-Beeching. In my area I have in mind the small line from Barnstaple to Bideford. In the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) I have in mind the line from Exeter to Okehampton.
I am aware that there are more national implications than I first thought when I considered the west country. It is worth a try to encourage passengers back on to the railways. It is worth a try to encourage British Rail to be


rather more adventurous. I fully understand its problems. It dare not reopen lines when it cannot afford the cost of later closures.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Ron Lewis and Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Tony Speller accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Minister of Transport to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to reopened on a trial basis: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

IRAN (SANCTIONS)

Mr. Tain Dalyell: I beg to move, that this House do now adjourn.

Leave having been given on Monday 19 May under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The breach of the procedure of the House of Commons by the Government in failing to bring forward new legislation on Iran (Temporary Powers) in the light of the Lord Privy Seal's statement and the Government's decision to back-date the imposition of sanctions to 4th November 1979.

I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you gave leave under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure for a very specific topic to be discussed, namely, the retrospective element in the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act. For reasons that I do not think the House will require me to rehearse, circumstances have changed. It would be an abuse of the procedure of the House if we were to succumb to the temptation to try to raise all sorts of other interesting issues arising from the general issue of sanctions policy.

There is a particular reason for not trying to exploit the Standing Order No. 9 procedure unfairly and to injure it by abusing it at a time when decisions on foreign affairs, especially with our EEC partners, are by nature ever more fast-moving. The Standing Order No. 9 procedure represents the best brake that the the House has over what would otherwise be faits accompli.

The salutary feature about yesterday's episode is that it means that a Minister—however senior and prestigious—before entering into an agreement with our EEC partners, with the Americans or with anyone else, must seriously ask himself "Can I be sure that the House of Commons will wear such a policy? "

I close with the thought that yesterday proved that the House will not be a rubber stamp for any Government, and that a Minister must realise that he or she at any time may have to face the hurdle of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to adjourn.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has played a notable part


throughout these proceedings on sanctions. The House will have greatly admired the restraint that he has shown this afternoon. I shall try to be almost as brief as he was, but I hope that the House will understand that I cannot be quite so brief.
After my statement yesterday about decisions taken on the implementation of sanctions against Iran by Foreign Ministers of the European Community meeting informally in Naples over the weekend, the House made its view very clear that the inclusion of retrospection, however limited, was unacceptable.
The Government have therefore decided that sanctions will not be retrospective. No orders will be laid before the House which ban the supply of goods under arrangements made before the date on which those orders were laid. Last night we informed our European Community partners and the Government of the United States that, in view of the opposition of this House to retrospection, we would no longer be prepared to proceed to apply any element of retrospection among the decisions that we agreed to at the meeting in Naples. Arrangements that ban the supply of arms continue in force.
The result of the Government's decision not to go ahead with the retrospective element in the decision of the Nine will now be that the Orders in Council which will be laid before the House to implement sanctions, will not apply to the export of goods under arrangements made before the date of those orders. The Government hope to make these orders as soon as possible. But it is our intention to make sure that the orders cover the same ground as the parallel orders that our partners in the Nine will be making, to give effect to the sanctions measures to which we have all agreed.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to make sure that we all go along this road at the same pace and that we cover the same ground. The necessary procedures for co-ordinating with our partners are already in hand.
I can also assure the House that when the orders are laid before the House there will be an opportunity for the House to debate them. As explained to the House during the debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers)

Act, any orders made under the Act will lapse if the House does not approve them within 28 days. The House was also given an assurance that any orders made under the 1939 Act will also be made subject to a parallel procedure. That is to say that, although the 1939 Act does not provide for orders made under it to be subject to a resolution by the House, in this case, because of the obvious importance of the question and the clearly expressed views of the House, the Government have undertaken to revoke any orders made under the 1939 Act if the approval of the House for such orders is not forthcoming.
The House has been virtually united in its condemnation of the illegal detention of the American hostages in Iran. The Government thought it right to play a leading part in working towards their release. One of the measures decided upon, in conjunction with our European partners, was the implementation of the sanctions put forward in the vetoed Security Council resolution. Although we recognise that sanctions are of limited value, we continue to believe that the policy of applying them is right, in order to demonstrate our solidarity with our friend and ally, and with the limited objective of securing the release of the hostages.
Our Community partners have hitherto taken the view that the appropriate way of showing such solidarity would be to apply sanctions to contracts concluded after 4 November 1979. But we accept the view of the House that sanctions applied in the United Kingdom should not be retrospective. We shall continue to work for the release of the hostages through what means we have, through quiet diplomacy and insistent persuasion. This is by no means incompatible with the operation of sanctions, and we trust that our efforts and the efforts of our partners will help to bear fruit.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this debate. I echo the words of the Lord Privy Seal in welcoming both the manner and matter of his short but cogent speech. He is entitled to great personal credit for his energy and tenacity in pressing this issue,


for the effectiveness of his intervention yesterday, and for his sucess in obtaining a debate under Standing Order No. 9. Not least, credit is due because, he has brought about an almost unprecedented change in Government policy. That change was unprecedented both in the speed with which Ministers reversed their decisions, and in the nature of the change, which affects agreements that were reached with eight other countries only 36 hours earlier.
I, too, will be short. We all know what happened. The story does not simply concern the reaction of the House yesterday to the Lord Privy Seal's statement. When the Government launched a two-day debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill last week, they had already taken a policy decision to activate the powers under the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill, if no progress had been made to secure the release of the American hostages. That would have affected future contracts.
Ministers reminded the House that the Government had in reserve the heavier powers contained in the 1939 Act. However, their intention was clear. They indicated that these powers would not be invoked for some time. That was the strong and inescapable impression that they gave. Among other things, that is why no serious response was made in ministerial replies to the anxieties that had been expressed by hon. Members from all parties about the disruption of existing contracts and the problems of compensation.
After the Bill had been enacted, the Foreign Secretary went to Vienna and then to Naples. During the course of his discussions in those cities he was persuaded not only to activate the powers under the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980 from a date to be announced in the relevant order, but to backdate sanctions to 4 November 1979. That was the date on which the American hostages were unlawfully seized. That was contrary to the understanding and wishes of the House. It was also contrary to the terms of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act.
If 4 November had been contemplated for a moment as the starting date, the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill would not have excluded—as it did—all contracts

that had been signed previously. Clause 1(2)(a) would have stated that an Order in Council would not apply to any contract made before 4 November. However, the existing text states that an Order in Council
 shall not apply to any contract made before the date on which the Order is made.
Yesterday the House heard the Lord Privy Seal's statement. Hon. Members felt strongly aggrieved. They felt that they had been deceived during those two days of debate. I believe that the Government did not intend to deceive the House last Monday and Tuesday. I believe that they were forced to deceive retrospectively, as a result of agreements that had been reached in Naples on the Saturday and Sunday. There is no reason for me to labour these points. The Government's decision last night has explicitly conceded them.
I have one question to ask the Lord Privy Seal before attempting to draw some lessons from this experience. The question relates to the powers contained in the 1939 Act. If the Government intend at some future stage to seek the approval of the House and to activate any of those powers, I hope that they will lay an affirmative order, rather than one that would reflect the type of order for which provision is contained in the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal has already agreed to that. However, I should be grateful for confirmation. We might otherwise find ourselves dealing with an order that had come into effect before the House had had a chance to debate it. That would be quite contrary to the wishes of hon. Members.
I warmly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about the importance of Standing Order No. 9 procedures. They were introduced about 12 years ago. They have given the House of Commons, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, an ability to respond immediately to events in a way that was previously inconceivable. They are of great value to all who believe in the authority of the House of Commons and in the central importance of debate on the Floor of the House.
An Adjournment debate which is raised under Standing Order No. 9 serves to remind Ministers that their control over our timetable is far from perfect. It


reminds the nation that issues of great interest and importance can be debated without delay. It reminds all hon. Members of the central truth of British parliamentary democracy, namely, that, however large a Government's majority may be, they ultimately depend on the votes of hon. Members.
Secondly, these events have taught a most important lesson about the conduct of British foreign policy. Provided that Ministers have the support of the House of Commons they can conclude firm agreements with other countries on all matters that they think important. But if Ministers think that in their dealings with other countries they are free agents who can safely yield to the pressures of other nations and just assume the consent of the House of Commons, they are profoundly mistaken.
This is important in our relations both with the United States and the EEC. We are friends and allies of the United States, and the whole House has made it plain that the United States has our strong support for concerted, non-military measures to bring about the early release of the hostages. We believe that they have been grievously wronged, and that the Iranians have committed a most serious offence against international law. But we have the right and the duty to decide the nature and timing of the measures that we can take in order to assist the release of the hostages. It is our judgment, and not our obedience, that we offer.
The view of the House and the Government was made clear last week. It was sensible to proceed slowly using modest sanctions as a minor accompaniment to diplomatic and political measures. The use of stronger sanctions was not ruled out in future, but it was not the general view last week of either the Government or the House that this was the time to invoke them. We already knew then that the United States had a different view, but that was in no way sufficient reason for the Foreign Secretary to go further than the House intended.
The lesson for the EEC is also clear. There can be no question of a common foreign policy, of speaking with one voice, except on those occasions when it is the will of the House to do so. The result of the Naples agreement and of

last night's reversal is, of course, a shambles. I do not welcome a situation in which our Foreign Ministers, in their dealings with the EEC, can be accused of being uncertain or irresolute. I have said in another context, and I say it again, that British Ministers should say what they mean and mean what they say. We have taken that position on many other matters of great importance, including that of the budget contribution before the Dublin meetings last year.
The Government will have to deal with the problem that they have created. The Foreign Secretary is bound to find it embarrassing. The important thing for the EEC to understand is that in Britain the House of Commons is supreme. That does not mean that British Ministers cannot make firm and binding commitments. It means that in Britain, at least, commitments must be preceded by agreement in the House of Commons.
My third point is practical. Clearly there is a need for greater co-ordination between Foreign Office Ministers than we have had so far. There is a problem here. If Senior Ministers are obliged, as in the case of the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary, to undertake a series of overseas visits, and if junior Ministers are given the responsibility of handling sensitive legislation, there is an obvious danger that senior Ministers will become out of touch and insensitive to the opinions and understandings of the House. This is even more a problem when the Foreign Secretary is in another place.
We had a classic example of such in-sensitivity yesterday. The Lord Privy Seal made a number of tart comments to my right hon. and hon. Friends which, had he been able to listen to the debates last week, he would not have made. It is not for me to suggest how this problem can best be dealt with, but it is a problem and Foreign Ministers should seek seriously to overcome it.
I do not wish to carry the matter any further today. The Government were right to bow to the will of the House. There are worth-while lessons to be learnt and our allies and friends may rest assured that in asserting, as we have, the supremacy of the House of Commons we in no way resile from our view of the total unacceptability of the Iranian conduct towards the American hostages. We shall


seek to assist their early release in every sensible way.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to ask only two questions, but first, like the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and the Lord Privy Seal, I think it proper to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). All the firms that would have been affected by the retrospective legislations should be grateful to him for his action. Very often we are annoyed by the hon. Member's persistence, but on this occasion it has been wholly vindicated.
The Minister emphasised throughout that the Nine seek to move in parallel in bringing the sanctions into effect. Will this position change? Will the Government's decision affect what the other eight Governments do? Presumably the others persuaded us to make the matter retrospective. Will they not now make it retrospective themselves? What is the position?
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar described the Government's action as somewhat "shambolic ". I do not know about that, but I do find it very strange. I do not understand why a British Government, in consultation with Foreign Ministers, should enter into a commitment and then go back on it. Either they should decide that, mistakenly or reluctantly, they propose to enter the commitment and adhere to it, or they should tell their European colleagues that they genuinely feel that they cannot take this commitment and therefore they will not enter it. In other words, surely the Government have been guilty of profoundly misjudging the situation. I agree that certainly one cannot accuse them of seeking consciously to deceive, but clearly they have seriously misjudged the situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that it is the will of the House—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet I will call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but he must wait his turn like anyone else.
I believe that it is the will of the House that we come to a conclusion on this matter quickly. I hope that those hon. Members who, nevertheless, feel that they must speak, will bear that in mind.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal one question. Had he given way to me during his speech, all this could have been avoided. My question is on precisely the same point as that made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). This is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be a co-ordination of activity between the Government and our friends in Europe. Precisely what does that mean? Does it now mean that the EEC countries have agreed that sanctions will not be retrospective for them either, or does it mean that we are actually going it alone? I should be very pleased if it were the latter.

Sir Ian Gilmour: With the leave of the House, I shall answer the questions that have been put to me.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) asked for an assurance about orders. In my statement I said that although there is no provision in the 1939 Act for making such orders, we shall apply exactly the same procedure for orders under the 1939 Act as for those made under the Act passed last week. I further assure the House that we shall ensure that the debate on those orders, if any, takes place as soon as possible.

Mr. Shore: That is precisely the point. I did not mishear the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government use the 1939 Act with the affirmative order procedure in the 1980 Act, that order will come into effect before it can be debated. To avoid that difficulty I asked the right hon. Gentleman to use the normal affirmative order procedure, where drafts cannot come into effect until the House has debated and approved them.

Sir I. Gilmour: I was seeking to make the point that now that any possibility of retrospection has been removed from orders made under the 1939 Act, I do not believe that there is cause to make a distinction between orders made respectively, under the 1939 Act and the Act passed last week. I shall certainly think


about the matter, and I have undertaken that debates will take place as soon as possible.
I am sorry that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). As he knows, I normally give way, but I was hoping to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as possible. The answer to the question proposed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is that it is too soon to know. We notified our partners only last night, and we cannot say what will happen. As I said, we accept the need for co-ordination and for moving at the same pace down the same path.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 7

DISCOUNT

Amendment moved [19 May]: No. 9, in page 6, line 15, after first ' the ' insert ' regular '.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that the timetable motion will come into effect at different times from those that we expected. The guillotine will fall at 5.54 pm instead of 5.30 pm, 6.54 pm instead of 6.30 pm, 9.24 pm instead of 9 pm, 10.24 pm instead of 10 pm and 12.24 am instead of midnight. The times are available for any hon. Member who has been unable to write them down.
I remind the House that with amendment No. 9 we are taking Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I was explaining last night that the amendment associated with Government amendment No. 9, which I was in course of moving, was to bring about a small redefinition of members of the Armed Forces who will be able to benefit from the discount under the right to buy that we are applying to them. We thought it right to make it clear in the legislation that the Service men should be able to benefit would be members of the Regular forces. We have decided to adopt the definition in section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as amended by section 20 of the Armed Forces Act 1976. This is as follows:
 ' Regular armed forces of the Crown ' means the Royal Navy, the regular forces as defined by section 225 of the Army Act 1955, the regular air force as defined by section 223 of the Air Force Act 1955, Queen Alexandra's Royal Navy Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service ".
That extends the scope of the legislation to those who were members of or would be normally regarded as the Regular Armed Forces, which I hope will meet with the wishes of the House.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Bearing in mind the recently published defence White Paper, which makes it clear that Service men will be allowed to purchase at similar discounts surplus Service accommodation, is there anything in the amendment to enable Service men who have previously lived in council accommodation to have that term added to the length of time in Service accommodation for discount purposes?

Mr. Stanley: The Housing Bill provision in chapter 1 relates to part V local authority accommodation and the equivalent of local authority accommodation provided by the new towns and housing associations. To the extent that the legislation has effect here, it applies only in respect of purchases of those dwellings. The question of the sale of existing houses or flats that may be in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is outside the scope of this legislation.

Mr. Michael McNairWilson: The amendments are more than manuscript changes. Clause 7 is extremely important. It sets out the discounts available to council house tenants. The changes attempt to define more precisely what is meant by Armed Forces within the meaning of the Bill.
Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the definition that he has included? Why are the Women's Royal Army Corps and the Women's Royal Air Force omitted, together with the two nursing organisations that apply to the Army and Royal Air Force? Only the Women's Royal Naval Service and the nursing service applicable to the Royal Navy are included.
What are the criteria for deciding that members of the Regular Armed Forces should be given the benefits of those discounts but other Ministry of Defence personnel left out? My hon. Friend may say that the danger inherent in being a member of the Armed Forces has encouraged him and his colleagues to add them to this Bill to acknowledge that hazard. It that is so, has my hon. Friend considered the Ministry of Defence personnel who work at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, in my constituency? They are engaged in the active areas and contribute mightily

to the production of nuclear material that goes into our Polaris submarines. My hon. Friend will know from the report produced by Sir Edward Pochin in 1978 that there is considerable hazard for those working at Aldermaston. If the Armed Forces are included for that reason, those people are also worthy of inclusion.
Ever since the Ministry of Defence decided to sell the houses occupied by personnel at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment to the Property Services Agency, the question has been a bone of contention in my constituency. The agency was told that it could offer the houses first to the Newbury district council and only then to the sitting tenants. I took up the matter with the previous Government and more recently with my hon. Friend. I still await a letter to complete the correspondence.
The definition will make it all but impossible for hope to remain in the hearts of those members of the Ministry of Defence who work at Aldermaston. They believed, as perhaps I believed, that when the Conservative Government was returned last year they might have the chance to buy the houses in which many of them have lived for 20 years or more and enjoy the same discount enjoyed by a council tenant who could claim the same length of residency. Alas, because the PSA, prompted by the previous Government, had decided to offer the houses to Newbury district council, which took up the offer, because they were sold at unbelievable, knock-down prices of between £4,000 and £10,000, which bore no resemblance to their market value, no houses have been offered to the Ministry of Defence tenants who continue to live in them.
When the Government came to power, hope rose in the hearts of those tenants. The Conservative-controlled district council also thought that the fact that those people had been tenants in Government-owned properties for so long would give them a chance to benefit. Under the heading:
 Fairer deal promised for ex-MoD tenants ".
the Newbury Weekly News reported on 5 July last year:
 Over 100 former Ministry of Defence houses throughout the Newbury district are to be included in the district council's sale of council houses scheme … Now, following a decision by the council's policy committee this


week tenants' terms of residence will include the MoD period—thus making some eligible for full 50 per cent discounts.
Those tenants were thrilled by that news and many thought that at long last the injustice done to them by the previous Government was to be put right. I need hardly tell the Minister how disappointed they were to find that they had been excluded. I plead their case again.
I recognise the right of members of the Armed Forces to be given discounts, but when talking about the Armed Forces it is difficult to draw a line between the members of the Services and employees of the Ministry of Defence who, I hope I have shown the House, are involved in hazardous work that is vital to the maintenance of our Polaris fleet.
I have suggested that the amendments are defective because they leave out the WRAF, the WRAC and two of the women's nursing services which are just as much part of the Regular Armed Forces as is the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service—and the Royal Marines do not seem to get a mention, though perhaps they are subsumed in the Royal Navy. If I am right, the amendments will have to be looked at again before the Bill becomes law. I hope that at that time my hon. Friend the Minister will give a thought to the 100 house-holders in Ministry of Defence property who find that their homes are owned by the Newbury district council and that they are to treated as though they were council house tenants of one year's standing.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in equity, that cannot be right. Those tenants are performing hazardous and nationally important jobs. I suggest that, when we are considering discounts, they deserve as much recognition as do members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Frank Allaun: (Salford, East): The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made an interesting speech and pointed to other categories who, because they undergo risk and hazard, should be entitled to the benefit of being able to buy council houses at a high discount. However, there are others who undergo greater risks and hazards—for example, miners, spidermen and trawlermen.
I am not opposed to Service men having their full rights. Indeed, I believe that they are entitled to better pay and conditions and should have the right to belong to a trade union in order to achieve those benefits. However, if giving enhanced discounts to Service men or council tenants who buy results in the great majority of would-be council tenants being deprived of the opportunity either to buy a house or to get similar discounts, I am opposed to the proposal.
The case of the hon. Member for Newbury seems fair enough, but he is pleading that even more people should get discounts on the purchase of houses. The effect of that would be higher rents for all council tenants who do not buy and higher rates for everybody, because of the losses incurred by local authorities who will have to go on paying the interest charges on those houses for the next 60 years. It would also be disadvantageous to the community as a whole, for the reasons that we have outlined in other debates.
4.15 pm
The right to buy should be available to nobody. Everybody who has a council house should continue as a tenant. We should certainly not approve the worst feature of the Bill, which is that councils who do not want to sell houses to tenants should be compelled to do so. That is contrary to all our ideas of local democracy and, therefore, I cannot agree with what the hon. Member for Newbury was saying.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he opposes all sales of council houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was suggesting that the miners, to whom the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred, who undoubtedly undertake hazardous jobs, will enjoy the right to buy by virtue of being tenants if they live in council houses. My hon. Friend was suggesting that, in equity, the same right should be extended to those to whom he was referring.

Mr. Allaun: I accept that if we agree to the principle of the sale of council houses it is inequitable that those to whom the hon. Member for Newbury referred should be excluded.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding on an English and Welsh Housing Bill, but the Minister's reply about the lack of reciprocal arrangements for those in Ministry of Defence houses surprised me. He cannot get away with making the bland statement that it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. In fact, almost every other Government Department is involved.
On the equivalent Scottish Bill we were assured that a certain percentage of prison department houses would be sold, as would health board houses. In considering the definition of Armed Forces, we are not discussing only the extension of the categories who will have rights once they become council tenants. We are surely entitled to some indication of the Government's thinking.
The Government are forcing the sale of council houses on local authorities and if I were a member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the prison department, I should want to know why I could not be given an opportunity to buy a Government-owned house. It is appalling that the Minister should hide behind the traditional reply that it is a matter for his colleagues. I hope that he will expand on that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Before my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I should like to draw his attention to the fate of police officers and serving policemen. I have had many representations by police officers in Hertfordshire. They recognise that the police authority is having discussions with the Home Office to see whether some arrangements can be made for certain police houses to be offered for sale, but it is unlikely that the discounts will be as great as the discounts offered to council house tenants. I hope that some arrangement can be made whereby these people—to whom the general public are indebted—can be offered the same conditions as those that are being offered to everyone else.

Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Member who raised the question originally, may I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in asking the Minister to give further consideration to this amendment. One of the most advanced Air Force bases in the country is situated in my constituency, and it is

critical to the defence of Britain. It would be somewhat invidious to separate those people in the operational wing from those on the support side of that base. They all contribute to the defence of the country.
I understand the point made by the Minister yesterday, which required him to seek a narrower definition within this clause. Having listened to his speech I would suppose that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), was not present at that time and, therefore, is unaware of the need to define this clause more narrowly. Nevertheless, I share the misgivings voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, and I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that he he will look again at the clause before the Bill completes its remaining stages through this House and another place.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents, and I am grateful to him for raising the extent of the coverage of members of the Regular branches of the women's Services. It is our intention to cover all Regular members of the Armed Services, both men and women. I hope that both the Regular women's Services of the Army and Air Force are covered within the relevant sections of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955, the definitions of which I referred to. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall look again at the definitions in order to double check that they are included. I shall also look at the nursing branches to which he referred. If I may, I shall write to him to confirm the position in such a manner that the information will be available to all hon. Members. Should there be any need for a further amendment, I shall indicate that also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury also raised the question of civilian members of the Ministry of Defence. A difficult judgment has had to be made, because there are many members of the public services who might have a claim to the benefit of the right-to-buy discount, which we felt it was right to extend to those people in uniform on a regular basis. We took account of the fact that the work of those in the military services is hazardous. We are conscious that they are under a special form of military jurisdiction. By the nature of their work, it is more difficult for them to establish a


permanent home. They have to be able to move regularly, and often at short notice, and it is, therefore, more difficult for them to put down roots. They are in a different position from civilians who have a greater opportunity to establish permanent roots.
Inevitaby, wherever we draw the line, there will be some difficult cases. That is unavoidable. When we considered the possibilities that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, we also had to consider other civilians in the public services, not only in the Ministry of Defence but in other branches of the public service where, on grounds of the hazardous nature of their job and the need to move to different parts of the country, a case could be made for them, too. When we looked at the possibilities, we decided that if we made the extension into the civilian branches it would become still more difficult to establish a hard-and-fast rational line as to where the statutory entitlement under the right to buy should be drawn.
We reached the conclusion that the only rational place where we could draw the line was between those who were under military jurisdiction—those people in uniform on a regular basis—and those who were not. I am sorry that that is a dissappointment to the constituents of my hon. Friend, but they can draw some comfort from the fact that, as a result of the right-to-buy discounts that I have included here, they will be able to benefit from a one-third discount after three years' qualification which has not been available previously.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), may I say that it is right, in an English and Welsh context, that the terms of disposal of publicly-owned houses that are owned by other Government Departments must be a matter for individual Ministers who are responsible for those dwellings. The Government have considered the general policy on disposals. It must be a matter for each Department to decide, but we want to be satisfied that the existing enabling powers enable individual Departments and public authorites to make disposal on the same basis of the discounts under the right-to-buy legislation. It must be a decision for

each Department as to how those powers are used, but sufficient statutory rules should exist on an enabling basis so that people can be offered discounts on the same terms under the right-to-buy provision in the Bill.
The same principle applies to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). We have examined this matter in terms of the statutory powers that are available to county councils which own most of the police houses. We have ensured that where a local authority—a county council in this case—uses powers to sell a police house to a tenant, there is no statutory provision to prevent it from selling on the same discount basis under the right-to-buy legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 6, line 17, at end insert—
'; or
(c) if the secure tenant succeeded to his tenancy under section 29(2) or (3) below—

(i) the secure tenant,
(ii) the secure tenant from whom he succeeded, or
(iii) that predecessor's spouse, was a secure tenant.'

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the entitlement of discount rates to all those who are entitled to buy. The Bill extends the discount provisions in time of death to the spouse. I do not believe that that is sufficient. It should be extended to include another member of the family if he or she has succeeded to the tenancy and has been living in the same house.
My attention was drawn to this matter initially by a constituent who had lived with her mother for 57 years. Although she subsequently married, she continued to live with her parents. During the later part of her parents' life, she, not her parents, paid the rent. However, it was not until the death of the surviving parent that the tenancy was altered to her name. That often happens. Despite the fact that my constituent has been living in this house for such a protracted period, she is not entitled to the maximum 50 per cent. discount, and this is morally wrong.
4.30 pm
I am also aware of two other instances of injustice in my constituency. I have


great sympathy with the tenants concerned. Where a son or daughter takes over the payment of rent, usually on the retirement of an elderly parent, it is not common practice to have the tenancy changed, and the House should accept that to make such a suggestion to the parent would be extremely difficult. There is no earthly reason why the Bill should not be amended to make provision for cases of this kind.
The Rent Act 1977 gives security of tenure not only for the lifetime of the original tenant but also for the lifetime of his statutory successor, that is, the first successor, and also for the lifetime of the latter's successor, that is, the second successor. A successor is defined as someone who must be either the spouse of the person he or she succeeds or, if there is no spouse, a member of the tenant's family who had been living with the tenant for six months.
Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 29 simplify the specifications for succession but extend the period of qualification for residence from six months to 12 months, which is very fair. If the principle of selling council houses to sitting tenants is right—and I believe it is—it is the Government's responsibility to clear up anomalies of this kind. I should be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend would give me an assurance that the Bill will be amended, either here or in the Lords, to cover the provisions to which I have referred.

Mr. John Lee: I support the amendment which has been initiated and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). It is a logical amendment. It encourages home ownership, which Conservative Members particularly support, and it has equity on its side, it surely cannot be right to deprive sons and daughters, who might have stayed at home to look after not only elderly parents but also handicapped parents, of the right to buy on attractive terms. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the way in which they have moved the amendment. I appreciate wry much the point they have made. It has concerned a number of hon. Members who have written to us about the position

of discount entitlement in relation to those who have succeeded to a tenancy, particularly in the sorts of cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) where someone has been living in the house for a great many years, perhaps since birth, and may latterly have taken over a substantial measure—possibly the entire measure—of responsibility of maintaining the property and contributing a great deal to the rent, if not paying all of it.
We have been considering the possibility of an amendment to deal with such cases, and I am glad to tell my hon. Friends that we intend to introduce one in another place. What we have in mind would not produce precisely the same result as is sought in the amendment, but I hope that, when I have explained our intention, my hon. Friends will be able to agree with what we propose.
We have accepted that, like spouses, many adult children living with parents will have contributed towards the household's costs, and may even have carried the major share of them. We accept that a concession ought to be made in these circumstances if the child subsequently suceeds to the tenancy and exercises the right to buy.
We have concluded that a landlord should have discretion, however, to make discount available in respect of periods going back beyond the start of the tenancy of the person exercising the right to buy. We propose to adopt a similar provision to that in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, where such a provision already exists—that a tenant who has succeeded to a parents' secure tenancy should be able to receive discount entitlement in respect of time spent living with the parents since reaching the age of !6. Because of the great variety of personal and family circumstances, however, we think it is right that this discount entitlement, on succession, should be available at the discretion of the local authority.
My hon. Friend has introduced an important amendment. It is defective in one or two respects. I hope that he will seek to withdraw it, in view of the clear assurance that I have been able to give, that we intend to bring forward in another place the amendment that I have described.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The amendment is an example of the kind of thing that happens when a Government embark along the road on which this Government have embarked in chapter I of the Bill, namely, that of dissipating public assets in this way. It becomes a situation in which the logic of the dissipation of the assets requires, at the margin, the enlargement of the dissipation, due to the perfectly valid case that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) puts forward, where a relative lives with someone in the way described and contributes to the household expenses. To the official Opposition the dissipation of the assets is unacceptable, and therefore we would certainly have opposed the amendment. We are pleased that the Minister has not accepted it in the terms in which it was tabled.
We shall examine the amendment that the Minister tables for consideration in another place. We are pleased, at any rate, that any discount arrangements may be at the discretion of the local authority, but we shall have to examine precisely what those arrangements are. Our attitude to the amendment, when it returns from another place for consideration here, will be very much governed by the discretion committed to the local authority. If that discretion is not satisfactory to us, we shall oppose and vote against that amendment, just as we would have opposed and voted against this amendment if the hon. Gentleman had persisted with it.

Mr. Trippier: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 6, line 37, leave out ' armed forces ' and insert
' regular armed forces of the Crown '.

No. 11, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
'( ) In this section "regular armed forces of the Crown" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.'.

No. 12, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
' (6A) Where the person or one of the persons exercising the right to buy, or the spouse of that person or of any of those persons, is a previous purchaser, a period shall be taken into

account as a period during which the previous purchaser was, or was the spouse of, a secure tenant or during which he or his spouse occupied accommodation provided for him or his spouse as a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown, only if it falls after the completion of the previous purchase or, if more than one, the last of them.
(6B) In subsection (6A) above "previous purchaser" and "previous purchase" have the same meanings as in section 1(5A) above.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 8

REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL OF FREEHOLD OR LEASE

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 9, at beginning insert
' subject to sub-section (2A) below '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 14, in page 7, line 13, at end insert—
' (2A) Where the conveyance or grant has been made following the exercise by the tenants of rights referred under subsection (2)(6) of section 15, the purchase price upon which the calculation of discount repayable shall be based shall be the value of the dwelling-house at the date of the conveyance or grant.'.
No. 29, in clause 15, page 11, line 28 leave out from ' notice ' to end of line 34.
No. 31, in clause 15, page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
No. 32, in clause 15, page 12, line 7, leave out ' two ' and insert ' one '.
No. 33, in clause 15, page 12, line 11, leave out ' two ' and insert ' one '.
No. 34, in clause 15, page 12, line 14, leave out ' two ' and insert ' one '.
No. 161, in clause 15, page 12, line 7, leave out ' two year ' and insert ' six months '.
No. 162, in clause 15, page 12, line 14, leave out ' two years ' and insert ' six months '.

Mr. Straw: Under clause 15, tenants whose income falls below certain prescribed limits will have the right to pay £100 to the local authority and by that payment to gain an option, which is exercisable for the following two years, to buy their dwelling at the price that obtained when they paid their £100 down, and not at the price that prevailed when they came to purchase the property, irrespective of


the increase in the value of the houses in the meantime.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Monstrous.

Mr. Straw: It is our judgment that this is indeed a monstrous provision, and that it is one of the most unjustifiable and objectionable parts of a thoroughly objectionable Bill.
The amendments are designed to deal with this option. Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 seek to delete the option provisions altogether. If that is not acceptable to Conservative Members after they have heard my arguments, they may then come to amendments Nos. 32 and 33, which seek to reduce the option period from two years to one year. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14—I hope that Conservative Members will pay particular attention to them—provide that those who exercise these options should not be able to make windfall profits of some hundreds—and in many cases thousands—of pounds which would otherwise fall available to them under the exercise of the option.
Let me deal first with our objections to the principle of these options. We object to the options as provided in the Bill because they are unfair to other tenants, unfair to owner-occupiers, unfair to those in the private sector—young couples trying to scrape together the money to get a mortgage to buy a house—and unfair to the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, because of the dissipation and the throwing away of public assets.
In many ways these options amount to a fraud upon the public purse because of the way in which they seek to throw away public assets without justification. We object to the options provision because it will lead to large windfall profits being made by some tenants and the fact that those windfall profits will lead to the possibility of great abuse by tenants. The possibility of such abuse could create an administrative nightmare for local authorities which have to administer the options scheme. We also object to the options provision because, as I shall demonstrate, it is wholly unnecessary, even given the reason which Ministers have advanced for its being in the Bill in the first place.
It is the duty of any Government to seek to deal fairly with the various sections

of the community in respect of which they pass legislation. That, above all, must be the case when we deal with housing, which is one of the most prized assets of all, and one of the most basic necessities of life. Do we have a Government who are dealing fairly with the provision of housing? We have a Government who, far from dealing fairly with the provision of housing, are dealing with it most unfairly. Those in the public sector who remain tenants will find their rents forced up and up during the life-time of this Government. Those rents are already about to be forced up by £2 during the next year, and as public expenditure forecasts indicate, they will probably more than double by the end of the period of office of this Government. And that is before we allow fully for inflation.
The Government have dealt far from fairly with owner-occupiers in the private sector. Having castigated the previous Labour Government for their level of mortgage interest rates, what have this Government done? As a result of their monetary policy they have forced the mortgage rate up to a record level. The result of that has been to create great hardship for hundreds of thousands of owner-occupiers.
A the same time, the Government's other policies are creating a desperate housing shortage for those who are in real need—those who live with families, who are homeless or who live in the private sector. Yet, while the Government are wholly dismissive of the claims of the overwhelming majority of people in housing need—both in the owner-occupied and the public and private tenanted sectors—in the Bill they offer not only discounts of between 33 per cent. and 50 per cent. to tenants who exercise the right to buy—and we object to that—but they gratuitously offer what amounts to an additional discount which can, as I demonstrated in Committee, and will demonstrate here again, lead to tenants making substantial windfall profits, for no good reason.
The only justification that we have been able to glean from the Government for these provisions is that they are so desperate to ensure that council estates are broken up—so desperate is the gauleiter of housing, the Secretary of State, to seek to buy off the political affiliations


of tenants on council estates—that they have to go in for what is no more than an abject form of bribery. And because that bribery has been effected with money provided by the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country it amounts to a fraud upon the public purse.
As I have said, because of the large windfall gains that will be made there will be widespread abuse. There is no question but that tenants will have every incentive to understate their income in order to gain the right to an option and subsequently pay rent at a level that will, inevitably, be lower than their mortgage repayments over the following two years. They can then exercise their option and sell within two years, so making their windfall profits.

Mr. John Heddle: rose—

Mr. Straw: The view that abuse will occur is shared not just by Opposition Members, and not just by Labour-controlled local authorities, but by the Association of Municipal Authorities when it was Conservative-controlled. Before the last general election the AMA said that
 the proposal to grant a two-year option to purchase at a fixed price, upon payment of a returnable deposit of £100, is open to considerable abuse.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Member has used the expression "windfall profits" six times during the last five minutes. I invite him to agree with me that no such windfall profits will be made because when the tenant has exercised his right to buy—whether it be after six months, nine months, a year or two years—he has to live in that property for five years before he is free of paying back any of the profit, if indeed there is a profit, to the local authority.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member must have been asleep in Committee when we discussed this matter in great detail and when I demonstrated—I believe convincingly—that even during the period when the discount obtained the tenant who had exercised an option would make an additional profit over and above that which a tenant in an identical position would make had he not exercised the option. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees

with me, I invite him to look at the Official Report of Standing Committee F for the eighth sitting on Thursday 14 February. At no stage were the calculations that I produced for the Committee challenged by Ministers or by Conservative Members. I repeat that the existence of the option provisions will lead to many and great administrative complications.
Before I deal with the way in which windfall profits arise, may I say that the option provisions are wholly unnecessary? Options are written into contracts between private buyers and sellers where there is a danger that a potential vendor will sell his property to someone else unless the potential buyer can pin down the seller to agreeing to give the buyer the first option during a period. Under the right-to-buy provision in the Bill, the tenant already has an option, which he is able to exercise so long as he remains a tenant. Therefore, there is no justification for providing this option, because it is already written into the Bill.
Now let me deal with the details of how tenants will make their windfall profits. Let us consider two tenants in identical houses, who live next door to each other, who have identical tenancy records in terms of the length of time that they have been tenants, who have identical incomes and who both complete a purchase on the same day at a value on that day of £10,000. One of them completes in the exercise of an option that he made two years previously, and the other completes without the exercise of an option.
If those properties are sold the next day, the tenant who has exercised the option will make a windfall profit. of hundreds of pounds, and if the property is sold two or three years later he will make an additional windfall profit of well over £1,500. I gave the Minister the calculations on this in Committee—column 379–80 of the Official Report for 14 February 1980 of Standing Committee F. On modest assumptions about the rate of inflation, I showed that if the sale took place between the second and third years after purchase the windfall profit would be £1,680.
The Minister said at the end of that sitting that he would study with great care the figures that I had provided, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say


about them. He knows that the figures that I gave are incontrovertible. The amendment proposes to deal with that injustice in a way which we believe will not even offend the sensibilities of Conservative Members, who are greatly attached to the option principles.
The amendment provides that during the five-year period in which the discount operates the amount of discount to be returned to the local authority on the sale of the property is based upon the value of the house at the point of purchase and not on the value when the option is exercised. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. Unless their housing policy is based upon the ethics of the bingo hall and the morality of the street market, they have an obligation to accept amendments which are designed to introduce an element of equity into an otherwise wholly unjustifiable and objectionable Bill.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The provision which the amendment aims to remove is an administrative nightmare for local authorities. Let us suppose that a local authority plans to modernise an estate of council houses—not that much of that will happen because of the cuts in the housing investment programme. A tenant might put down a £100 deposit and reserve an option to purchase his property in the next two years at the market price on the date of the deposit. What will the local authority do? Will it proceed with the modernisation of the property? If it does, will the modernisation add to the value of the house at the date of the deposit being made, at the date of the work being carried out or at the date that the option is exercised and the tenant begins to purchase?
An administrative nightmare is being created. It will be impossible for local authorities to make rational decisions. Discretion should be allowed in such legislation. The Government are attempting to force councils virtually to give away their council houses. Their desire to sell council houses is not shared by masses of council house tenants. If it were, the number of purchases would be higher. The Government are trying to prove that they are right in claiming that council house tenants want to purchase their homes.
Let us consider what will happen when a tenant fails to obtain a mortgage and, under other provisions, gets together with members of his family who live in the same property and decides to purchase. The tenant and three others could each deposit £25 and exercise the right to buy two years later at the price at which the property was valued when the deposit was made. It is amazing that such advantages should be given to tenants and their families when it is almost impossible for young couples in the private sector to obtain a mortgage and when it is almost impossible for people to afford to buy a house because of the high interest rates imposed by the Government.
Local authorities are being forced virtually to give away their houses when would-be owner-occupiers outside the council sector have to struggle as a result of Government policies. One can see clearly that the Government are not concerned about extending owner-occupation but are conducting a vendetta against public sector housing.
The two-year option means that the Government are giving a discount, not of 50 per cent, but of 75 per cent. Local authorities will be forced in law to sell a public asset at 75 per cent. less than the market value. That is a scandal and a dissipation of public funds. As soon as ratepayers, taxpayers, tenants who do not want to buy and owner-occupiers realise what the Government are doing, they will recognise that the Government are attacking public sector housing for doctrinaire reasons and that they do not really wish to extend owner-occupation.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I need not elaborate. I am opposed to the sale of council houses. I am even more strongly opposed to compelling local authorities which do not want to sell to do so.
At the next general election I assume that the Labour Party will say in its manifesto that it will no longer compel local authorities to sell council houses. I am confident that that is the official policy. I can envisage queues of council tenants lining up at the town hall and plonking down £100, because councils will be forced, even under a Labour Government, to sell houses to such would-be buyers. That is contrary to the parliamentary doctrine that one Government cannot


bind a subsequent Government. It is tantamount to saying that a Labour Government will force a Conservative Government to sell denationalised industries back to the public. That is retrospective legislation.
Let us examine what my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said. Up to 50 per cent. discount is being given. In the last two years the price of houses has risen by about 40 per cent. One could put down the £100 and, two years later, save about 40 per cent. on the cost of the house. That is on top of the 50 per cent. discount. That is the biggest give-away in history. I cannot see the present Government compelling private landlords to give away their houses. Only communal property can be given away in such a manner.
The scheme will attract villains, shysters and crooks. I could name some. I shall explain how the corruption will work. Somebody can go to a tenant and say "Look, you put down your name to buy your own house. Of course, we realise that the purchase price weekly is greater than the rent. Never mind. We shall pay you half the purchase price so that you will pay less than you are now paying in rent. At the end of five years you sell the house and I, as the moneylender, take 50 per cent. of the profit." That will be an attractive proposition to thousands of people.
5 pm
Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that in the Lake District houses costing £15,000 could be sold by 1983–84 for £90,000, a profit of £75,000, a sum which most working people do not see in a lifetime.
The Government are opening the door to corruption of the worst and most obvious kind. It is bitterly resented and, if it continues, more and more loopholes will be found for that sort of thing. In fact, that will not be necessary because one is provided in the Bill. Enormous profits will be made. But who will pay for them? They will be someone else's losses. The profits made by individual buyers—or individual crooks—will be made at the expense of the community's stock of dwellings. That is one of the most objectionable and hateful parts of

an altogether objectionable and hateful Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am glad that the House heard the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), because its theme was the thread that ran through the speeches that were made during about 51 Committee sittings. Because of the procedure of the House an afternoon going through to midnight is counted as one sitting. Therefore, in technical terms there were 48 sittings, but it may have been 58—and it certainly seemed like 158.
We heard rehearsed at virtually every sitting the Second Reading speeches of Opposition Members. Throughout the discussions they showed their hatred of council tenants. They lost no opportunity to say that the tenants would stoop to abuse and crookedness. They described the benefits that the tenants would receive under the Bill as windfall profits.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I hope that he will wait until I deal with his remarks, because I propose to encapsulate some of them into my speech. I do not propose to follow the example of a rerun, because the House and the country have decided the principle. The Committee examined the Bill in detail and returned it to the House on Report.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) trotted out his outworn and tasteless description of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a gauleiter.

Mr. Straw: I must correct the Minister. It was not my outworn and tasteless description, but that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). He used that expression during his speech on Second Reading about five months ago. I am sure that he will be glad to know—as will the members of the Conservative association in Buckingham—that he has been described by the Minister as distasteful. I think that the Minister also used another adjective. That description, apt though it was, was the authorship of a Conservative Member.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is admitting to cheap plagiarism. He was happy to do so on more than one


occasion in Committee, which was quite at odds with his normally genial nature. I am glad that he has shown us that Blackburn can occasionally provide a Jekyll and Hyde situation. It did so from time to time with his predecessor, now Lady Castle, who could show a smiling face when she was trying to persuade the Government to give her something, but when she did not get what she wanted became rather less pleasant and reverted to type. At least we know that the hon. Gentleman has picked up her mantle.
The hon. Gentleman said that a council tenant would have every reason to understate his income. He showed yet again the opinion that he holds of his fellow citizens, many of whom he relied upon for his votes when he was elected. I wonder whether he visited his council estates and said "Many of you will indulge in deception to get your biggest possible discount." I am prepared to suggest that he did not do that.
The hon. Gentleman charged my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) with being asleep when my hon. Friend challenged him about his false assertion, oft-repeated, of windfall profits. I confess that I am content to accept the estimate that the hon. Gentleman made of his own arguments when he said that they at least convinced him. I can only tell him that they did not convince anybody else.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: I am dealing with the hon. Member for Blackburn. I shall turn in a moment to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who accused us of a vendetta against public sector housing. I suggest that he is pursuing a vendetta against public sector tenants who, quite frankly, can look only to a Conservative Government for genuine assistance.

Mr. Straw: In Committee we examined in detail the calculations that I made, and the Minister for Housing and Construction said that he would study them with great care. That is on the record. Will the Minister say whether my calculations were wrong, and, if so, in what particular?

Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend may have said that he would study the hon.

Gentleman's calculations with great care, but that did not imply that he would do any more than look at them and say whether he agreed that the pocket calculator produced the answer. I have had some calculations made which indicate that a £10,000 house bought outright after five years would produce a value of £10,100 after the Bill discount clawback. An option purchaser two years later—because of the option process—would receive £8,500, and would have to wait two further years before his house was worth £10,900. The house of the person who had bought outright would, by then, have reached a value of £11,700. The calculations are on assumptions of a 40 per cent. discount and a 10 per cent. national house price increase.
I do not propose to examine the hon. Gentleman's figures, because I have not calculated them. I say that quite frankly. If my hon. Friend said that he would look at them, I am content to believe that he has done so. The fact that he has not decided to say anything means, presumably, that he takes the same view as I do, namely, that those calculations may satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but they do not need to bother the House.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister say whether the assertion that I made is reasonable? I said that if someone takes out an option and decides to exercise it after a two-year period, he will then be buying the house with a 75 per cent. discount, not a 50 per cent. discount.

Mr. Finsberg: I do not accept that form of arithmetic.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why not?

Mr. Finsberg: If I did, I should be sitting on the Opposition Benches. I prefer a commonsense argument. That is why I am fortunate enough to be on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State is treating Members and the assurances given by his hon. Friend in a contemptible way. After I had offered my calculations in Committee, and after the Minister had had every chance to take, advice from officials in the Committee, he said:
 I will certainly study the hon. Gentleman's calculations which relate to the narrow question of the discount clawback. I give him


an assurance that I will study the figures that he has given."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1980; c. 392.]
What is the result of the Minister's study of those figures? I want not the phoney calculations that the Under-Secretary has made, but the result of the study of the figures that I gave. May we be told the conclusion of that study?

Mr. Finsberg: Quite clearly, the calculations that were studied by my hon. Friend did not warrant any further action We do not propose to change the Bill because of those figures.
I wish to deal with the hon. Member for Salford, East, who was glad to reaffirm the policy of the Labour Party, namely, that it would withdraw the right to buy. On this occasion, we are not at cross-purposes. Until the Bill is passed, local authorities have the opportunity to sell; tenants do not have the right to buy. I hope that at least this time the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am misrepresenting him. What he believes the Labour Party will do—the hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority, as he has told us on many occasions, and we have all acknowledged it—is withdraw the right to buy. I understand that that will be in the Labour Party's manifesto. We are at one on that. I am glad that that is on the record.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has drawn a somewhat false analogy over the option situation. Parliament would not be binding its successor. A legal document would have to be honoured. I do not believe that even the Labour Party would wish to dishonour a legal document—which the individual option document would be—between the tenant and his landlord. That is the difference.

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: In 10 or 15 years, which is the soonest that we are likely to be in opposition, we might be unhappy if the Labour Government—[Interruption.] I said "soonest". I hope that my hon. Friends will give me credit for that. We would be unhappy if the then Labour Government, in 20 or 25 years, said that they were going to repeal the legislation. They would be constitutionally entitled to do that, but we would resist them if they said that they would cancel retrospectively option agreements freely entered

into between tenants and local authority landlords. That is the point.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister deny that for two years after the election of a Labour Government, that Government would be bound under this legislation to compel local authorities to sell, even though the contract had not been completed? That is the question.

Mr. Finsberg: I think that the hon. Gentleman has again slightly misunderstood me. Until legislation repealing this measure was passed local authorities would have to continue issuing option notices to tenants who wished to purchase. Once the legislation was passed, that would cease. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not saying that option documents already issued would be cancelled. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister think that he is being unfair in permitting this kind of thing to continue into the life of a Government opposed to it? Surely he is binding that Government to do something that they would not want to do.

Mr. Finsberg: Many Governments have come into power and, until they passed the appropriate legislation, have been saddled with legislation passed by their predecessors. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that he would encourage his Government—I say "his Government", although by then I am not sure whether they would be—to welsh on option agreements legally and freely entered into.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this important point. May I ask him to clarify, or extract a clarification from the Opposition spokesman on, this matter? If a constituent of mine placed a deposit with the local authority, which entitled him to purchase his council house, and entered into a contractual agreement with the authority giving him the option to buy that house, would it be the intention of the Labour Party to allow the Watford borough council to honour that contract or to renege on it? I think that this is a very important matter.

Mr. Finsberg: I shall happily give way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) if he


would care to clarify that point now, or, if he is proposing to intervene in the debate, perhaps he could make it clear later. It is occasionally useful to know whether his view coincides with that of the hon. Member for Salford, East on housing matters. One has responsibility in this House. The other has responsibility on the national executive of the Labour Party. We know who runs the Labour Party. It is not the Opposition spokesman in the House. However, it would be useful to know whether their views coincide.

Mr. Allaun: I suggest that it is deliberately unfair of the Government to grant options in the second half—I would say altogether—of their period of four or five years in office, because they know that they are putting a subsequent Government and local authorities in an invidious position. The question is not as posed by the Minister, but whether the Government should do that kind of thing.

Mr. Finsberg: Any Government should continue to uphold the law passed by Parliament. No Government are entitled to anticipate an event that probably will not happen. Therefore, the Government would be wrong to discourage local authorities, even during the last three months of office prior to an election.
I should like to make the position perfectly clear. I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly—if not, he may interrupt me—as having said that he thinks it is unfair that these options should continue to be granted within 18 months or so of a general election. If a Labour Government were elected, would he support legislation to cancel options freely entered into? He prophesied what would be in the Labour Party's election manifesto. Unless the big battalions of the TUC change their mind, or change the mind of the Labour Party conference, the hon. Gentleman could have a major say in the manifesto, overriding any moderate views of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley). Therefore, we are entitled to ask: does the Labour Party intend to support legislation to dishonour options freely entered into?

Mr. Allaun: The Labour Party has not considered that question. It has

unanimously decided to oppose the view being expressed by the Minister on option mortgages.

Mr. Finsberg: That is stage one. So the House and the country are entitled to know—one deduces this from what has been said—that the Labour Party will try to renege by legislative methods on options freely entered into. There can only be a "Yes" or a "No" to that. We have not had any clear commitment. Therefore, we are entitled to assume that the unfairness seen by the hon. Gentleman would be translated into legislation. We are also entitled to assume the same answer from the right hon. Member for Ardwick, unless he takes an opportunity during his speech to set the record right.
The hon. Member for Salford, East spoke about the bitter resentment of many people over the policy of this Government to compel local authorities to sell council houses. I have read the bitter resentment of that Birmingham voter—a life-long Socialist—who, when he went to buy his home, having made inquiries prior to the election was told "No, mate, it is not on any more". I have sympathy for him. It is sad that he did not listen to what we were saying and to the threats being made by the Labour Party. All I can say to him is "Hang on, old chap, we will rescue you, and perhaps you will decide that the party of the people is not the phoneys of the Left, but the Conservatives ".

Mr. Allaun: I do not know anything about the Birmingham voter, but I know about Conservative Members of Parliament who have had the courage to say that they are opposed to compelling authorities to sell council houses. I know of Conservative-controlled local authority associations which were and still are diametrically opposed to this proposal.

Mr. Finsberg: That may be. The Government were elected on a manifesto which made it clear that the sale of council houses and flats would be effected in such a way that local authorities could not contract out of the law of the land. We are carrying that through into legislation for the benefit of as many council tenants as wish to exercise that right.
We also said that those who are not in a position to exercise that right forthwith would be entitled to an option. This would perhaps be an appropriate moment,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, to come back to the options provision. You have been generous in allowing us to range wider than the amendments might have indicated It has been useful to nail the Labour Party yet again on its anti-local authority tenant views.
As I have tried to indicate the provision in clause 15, whereby a tenant who cannot afford to buy straight away may have a two-year option to purchase the dwelling house at the original valuation, is one to which the Government are fully committed. The provision that we have made is tightly drawn. The option procedure will be available only in limited circumstances where a tenant's mortgage entitlement would not enable him to buy immediately. In any event, I think that most people who buy will want to do so at once, so that they can start paying off their mortgage, and so that the five years for discount sharing begins to run as soon as possible. As to the life of the option, it must surely be long enough to fulfil its purpose. The tenant should know in advance the price at which he can buy while he saves the money to do so.
It is right to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he referred to this provision in his adoption speech. He said:
 We shall further offer these tenants the right at a nominal price to an option to buy if they remain tenants, so that they will know that they have a legally binding right for, say, two to three years to buy at a price fixed at the date of the option.
At that time we were considering whether it should be two or three years. After careful consideration, as the House knows, we concluded that the two-year period was right. I said earlier that the option procedure was an integral part of the right to buy. We believe that a period shorter than two years would be too short to make the option of any benefit, given that some time will have to elapse from a tenant's initial application to the date at which it becomes clear that he may have the option to complete at the fixed price within two years. I am firmly of the opinion that it would be wrong to cut down the period to one year or six months. I hope that the House will join me in that view.
The amendments are designed to disadvantage

the purchaser who buys, having taken advantage of the option to complete at any time within two years that is conferred by clause 15 on a limited number of those who exercise the right to buy. It would do so by compelling them, if they resold their home within five years—we should remember that it is their home—to repay all or part of the discount that would be based not on the price they paid, but on the discount to which they would have been entitled had the house been valued at the date of completion of the sale.
In support of the Government's opposition to these arguments I cite two more points which I hope will convince the House that the amendments are misconceived, mischievous and positively harmful to council tenants. The first is that purchasers who act with the benefit of the options conferred by clause 15 will be less well off than other purchasers. That is why we believe that they deserve the special help provided by the option provisions to which the Government are clearly committed by their election manifesto. In our view, the question of their being less well off also provides a good reason for not discriminating against them when they have actually bought.
The second reason is perhaps one of detail rather than principle, but it is important to repeat it. In putting down their amendments the Opposition have demonstrated their bitterness and their wholehearted opposition to the idea of options. They have ignored the disadvantage already experienced by option purchasers—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth. Those purchasers will, in any case, be caught up by the discount sharing provision for a period of five years, beginning up to two years after the service of their initial notice claiming to exercise the right to buy. To that extent they will be penalised in comparison with those who can afford to buy at once. In my view that is entirely fair and reasonable, but to go further would impose a disadvantage on such purchasers, which I do not believe, in equity, could be justified.
I hope that this moderate speech, drawing on the compassion of the Labour Party for local authority tenants, as one would believe if one were to listen to some of the comments that are made, will


persuade the House that it would be in the best interests of the council tenants if the amendment were withdrawn or not pressed to a vote. If, however, the Opposition wish to demonstrate yet again the contempt in which they hold local authority tenants, I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friend should vote the amendment down.

Mr. Kaufman: In the Standing Committee, we always appreciated the humour, conscious or unconscious, with which the Under-Secretary of State entertained us. The hon. Gentleman excelled himself today when he talked about the Labour Party's vendetta against, or hatred of, council tenants, and when he claimed that council tenants were looking to the Conservative Government. On 1 May, in a ward in my constituency composed totally of council property, the vote in favour of the Labour Party was six to one. The swing to Labour from last year—there was no swing against Labour in the general election—was 7½ per cent.
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), who was driven out of the Chamber by the tedious repetition of the Minister, a safe Conservative ward containing a large council estate was easily won by Labour because of the votes of the council tenants. If the hon. Member for Withington were to offer himself today for re-election in that constituency, there would be another Labour Member on this side of the House very soon. Similarly, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who talked of one of his constituents, would be lucky to retain his seat if he were to apply for re-election now. If the hon. Gentleman wants to test my argument, he can apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and we will all come and take part in the by-election.
The option provision that we are debating is a singular episode in the life of the Government. It is the only price control that the Government have imposed. Inflation under the Government has more than doubled, to almost 22 per cent. The Price Commission has been abolished. Value added tax has been doubled. Prescription charges have been quintupled. Rents are being forced up this year by 28 per cent. for the council tenant and by at least as much for the private tenant. The price of purchasing

a house is rising steadily. Of all the prices being forced up under this Government, including gas prices and other fuel prices, the only price—

Mr. Heddle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He may, in Committee, have been sleeping, but sometimes we would have been pleased if he had been afflicted with catalepsy. The only price controlled under the Government is the price at which one—

Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Mem ber for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kauf man), I believe, misinformed the House, without doubt, unintentionally. He stated that the prices of houses were continuing to rise. I submit that house prices rose 30 per cent. a year under his Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Mr. Kaufman: It is also an inaccurate point of argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I might have been misleading the House inadvertently. If I mislead the House, it will be deliberately and not inadvertently. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But, of course, I would do no such thing, because I am dealing with the Government's record on prices, on which the truth is indictment enough.
This £100 option is seen as particularly unfair when one considers the private house purchaser. What a boon it would be for someone wanting to buy a privately owned house if he were able to pick up the most excellent house that he could find, built to very high standards, because council houses are built to Parker Morris standards whereas the National House-building Council's standards are well below Parker Morris standards, go to the vendor, put down £100—the cost of 100 prescriptions—and keep the option to buy that house for two years, and if he then changed his mind he could get back his £100 as well !
One has only to state that proposition to see what an extraordinary privilege it would be for the private house purchaser if the Government were to give him that


opportunity, and how the Government really would be fulfilling their pledge to help the home owner if they were to do that. But the private house purchasers, who are frequently badly housed and wishing to buy houses because they are badly housed, will themselves, through the taxes and the rates that they pay, be contributing towards paying for this remarkable privilege for people who, by definition, are well housed and who must be well housed because they like the house in which they are living well enough to want to continue living in it and to buy it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. We are under a guillotine, and I think that the House will want to move on to other amendments.
The Opposition regard this option provision as an unacceptable rip-off of public assets which are being paid for, not by the Government, but by every taxpayer, every ratepayer and every mortgagor in the country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Every man and woman.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes. Every man and woman in the country will be paying for

this privilege for a small number of people. That is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Lewis: Even the sick and the disabled, through paying a high rate of value added tax and general taxation, are paying for it.

Mr. Kaufman: That is an extremely valid point, because the Social Security (No. 2) Bill helps to impose taxation upon those who are sick and the unemployed. They, together with the home owner buying the house on the market, will be paying for this privilege for a very small number of people. That being so, the Opposition will vote against the Government on this issue, and we invite other parties to do so, too.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this an intervention?

Mr. Finsberg: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be giving way.

Mr. Kaufman: I have finished.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 294.

Division No. 314]
AYES
[5.34 pm


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Field, Frank


Adams, Allen
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fitt, Gerard


Alton, David
Conland, Bernard
Flannery, Martin


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Archer, Rl Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, J. S.
Ford, Ben


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Forrester, John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett. Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Beith, A. J.
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Ginsburg, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Graham, Ted


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dormand, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Douglas, Dick
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Callagnan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Dubs, Alfred
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Heffer, Eric S.


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
English, Michael
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Cartwright, John
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Homewood, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry
Hooley, Frank




Horam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silverman, Julius


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Meacher, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Huckfield, Les
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Hon Grevllle
Molyneaux, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wylhenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stoddart, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morton, George
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newens, Stanley
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kerr, Russell
O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Rt Hon George (Cardiff W)


Kilfedder, James A.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tilley, John


Lambie, David
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lamborn, Harry
Park, George
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Leighton, Ronald
Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton S Slough)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Litherfand, Robert
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Weetch, Ken


Lofthouse, Geoflrey
Race, Reg
Wellbeloved, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Richardson, Jo
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wigley, Dafydd


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wiliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McKelvey, William
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Woodall, Alec


McNally, Thomas
Sever, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McWiliiam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Step and Pop)



Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. James Hamilton


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne. John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Altken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Eggar, Timothy


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Falrbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond
Fairgrleve, Russell


Aspinwall, Jack
Burden, F. A.
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkinson, David (B' mouth. East)
Butcher, John
Farr, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Hon Adam
Fell, Anthony


Banks, Robert
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bell, Sir Ronald
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fletcher-Cook, Charles


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Channon, Paul
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Chapman, Sydney
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)


Bevan, David Gllroy
Churchill. W. S.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Blackburn, John
Cockeram, Eric
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Colvin, Michael
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Critchley. Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dover, Denshore
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Greenway, Harry


Brotherton, Michael
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Grieve, Percy


Drown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Durant, Tony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Browne. John (Winchester)
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)







Grist, Ian
Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Grylls, Michael
Marland, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Glimmer, John Selwyn
Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harvnam, John
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shersby, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawksley, Warren
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Meddle, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Henderson. Barry
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, lain (Menden)
Sproat, Iain


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Hill, James
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Holland, Fhilip (Carlton)
Moore, John
Steen, Anthony


Hooson, Tom
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stevens, Martin


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Howell, Flalph (North Norfolk)
Myles, David
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Osborn, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Trippier, David


Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


King, Rt Hon Tom
Parris, Matthew
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Patten, John (Oxford)
Viggers, Peter


Knox, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Lament. Norman
Pawsey, James
Wakeham, John


Lang, Ian
Percival, Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Latham, Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, George
Wall, Patrick


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waller, Gary


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James
Ward, John


Lennox-Doyd, Hon Mark
Procter, K. Harvey
Warren, Kenneth


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy
Watson, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Loveridge, John
Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Luce, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Nell
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


MacGregor, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter
Mr. John Stradling-Thomas and


McQuarrie, Albert
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Madel, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 7, line 18, at end add
' or
(c) the grant of a lease or sub-lease for a term of twenty-one years or less with an option to renew or to purchase the freehold or lease as the case may be; '.
The intention of the amendment is to tighten the clause to avoid purchasers getting round restrictions on resale. I am sure that most hon. Members accept

that the Government's intention is not to allow the Bill to become a licence for speculation and profiteering. However, it will be possible for it to be used in such a way by the unscrupulous.
Many people, especially we in the Liberal Party, have no objection to incentives being offered through discount systems. The local authority in my constituency, having considered what is right for the area, has decided to implement the discount opportunities at the earliest possible moment.
It is that which the Government are trying to do by means of subsection (3) (a) and (b) that leads me to move the amendment. Subsection (3)(a) refers to
 a further conveyance of the freehold or an assignment 
as one category of disposal within the subsection. Subsection 3(b) refers to
 the grant of a lease or sub-lease for a term of more than twenty-one years otherwise than at a rack rent
The danger is that the Bill might enable a purchaser to lease or sub-lease a council house which he had bought for up to 21 years without losing his entitlement to a discount. Someone might buy a house for £18,000. He could then claim a discount of £9,000 and lease or sub-lease his home. He could use the money that he had made as a result of the discount to invest, speculate or buy another property. He could maintain the option of selling the property to the lessee 21 years later, or at a time of his choice.
If the Bill does not contain a clause that will stop speculation and profiteering, some people may use the loopholes to make a quick killing. I understand that the Minister may not be able to give an undertaking that he will accept the amendment. However, I hope that he will agree to consider the implications of the clause. When the Bill is considered in the other place, I hope that he will agree to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. In that spirit, I commend the amendment for the Minister's consideration.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) made clear, the amendment is intended to stop up what at first sight appears to be a loophole in the discount snaring arrangement.
As clause 8 stands, if a purchaser, under the right to buy, granted a lease and option on his dwelling-house of the type specified in the amendment, it would not trigger off the five-year discount. However, if the new lessee then exercised the option so that there was a consequent disposal of the freehold or long lease within that five-year period, the discount sharing provision would bite on that transaction. It may be feasible to draw up leases and options which would enable a purchaser, under the right to buy, to dispose of his dwelling-house and immediately receive something close to market

value without triggering the discount sharing provision.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to this problem. We have been considering the scope for such devices, but we should like to consider this one further. If need be, we shall table an appropriate amendment in the other place. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. On that understanding, I am happy and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 15, in page 7, line 31, after ' him ' insert
' by the Housing Corporation or a building society '.

No. 16, in page 7, line 32, at end insert
' or further advanced to him by the Corporation or society '.

No. 17, in page 7, line 39, at end insert
' (7) In this section "building society" means a bulding society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 or the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 '.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 9

RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE—AMOUNT TO BE SECURED

Amendments made:

No. 18, in page 8, line 9, after ' tenant's ', insert
' available '.

No. 19, in page 8, line 12, leave out
'so taken into account ' and insert
' taken into account in accordance with the regulations '.

No. 20, in page 8, line 13 after ' the ', insert
' available '.

No. 21, in page 8, line 18, after ' person's ', insert
' available '.

No. 22 in page 8, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
' (a) may provide for arriving at a person's available annual income by deducting from


the sums taken into account as his annual income sums related to his needs and commitments, and may exclude sums from those to be taken into account as a person's annual income; and.'.

No. 23, in page 8, line 24, leave out ' specify ' and insert
' (without prejudice to the generality of section 132(3) of this Act) specify different amounts and '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 10

NOTICE OF PURCHASE PRICE AND RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE

A mendments made:

No. 24, in page 9, line 4, leave out from beginning to ' and ' in line 5 and insert
' (ii) the amount mentioned in section 7(2).'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 11

RIGHT OF TENANT TO HAVE VALUE DETERMINED BY DISTRICT VALUER

Amendments made:

No. 25, in page 9, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert—
' (1) Any question arising under this Chapter as to the value of a dwelling-house at the relevant time shall be determined by the district valuer in accordance with this section.
(1A) A tenant may require that value to be determined or, as the case may be, re-determined by a notice in writing served on the landlord not later than three months after the service on him of the notice under section 10; except that—

(a) if proceedings are then pending between the landlord and the tenant for the determination of any other question arising under this Chapter, the notice may be served at any time within three months of the final determination of the proceedings, and
(b) if such proceedings are begun after a previous determination under this section the notice may be served within four weeks of the final determination of the proceedings and, whether or not such a notice is served, the landlord may at any time within those four weeks require the district valuer to redetermine the value of the dwelling-house at the relevant time.

(2) Where the landlord requires a re-determination to be made in pursuance of subsection (1A)(b) above it shall serve on the tenant a notice stating that the requirement is being or has been made.'.

No. 26, in page 9, line 31, at end insert
' or, as the case may be, from the service of the landlord's notice under subsection (2) above.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment up to the end of schedule 2, to be moved by a member of the Government. The amendments in question are amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48. Does any hon. Member wish to divide on any of these amendments?

Clause 12

CLAIM TO A MORTGAGE

Amendment made:

No. 27, in page 10, line 1 [Clause 12], leave out from ' Corporation ' to end of line 2 and insert
' within the period of three months beginning with the service on the tenant of the relevant notice, or within that period as extended under subsection (1A) below.
(1A) Where there are reasonable grounds for doing so, the landlord or, as the case may be, the Housing Corporation, shall by notice in writing served on the tenant extend (or further extend) the period within which the tenant's notice claiming to exercise his right to a mortgage must be served; and if it fails to do so the county court may by order extend or further extend that period until such date as may be specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 13

CHANGE OF SECURE TENANT AFTER NOTICE CLAIMING RIGHT TO BUY OR RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE

Amendment made:

No. 28, in page 10, line 34, leave out from ' within ' to end of line 35 and insert
' the period of three months beginning with the date on which he becomes the secure tenant or within that period as extended under subsection (2A) below.
(2A) Where there are reasonable grounds for doing so the landlord or, as the case may be, the Housing Corporation shall by notice in writing served on the new tenant extend (or further extend) the period within which his notice claiming to exercise the right to a mortgage may be served; and if it fails to do so the county court may by order extend or further extend that period until such date as may be specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 15

COMPLETION

Amendment made:

No. 30, in page 11, line 39, leave out from second ' the ' to end of line 40 and insert
' end of the period within which the notice claiming it could have been served.'—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 17

RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE—TERMS OF MORTGAGE DEED

Amendment made:

No. 35, in page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 18

DWELLING HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC.

Amendments made:

No. 37, in page 14, line 1, after ' authority ', insert ' or the Development Board for Rural Wales '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

No. 39, in page 14, line 9, after ' authority ', insert ' or Board '.

No. 40, in page 14, line 15, after ' authority ', insert ' or Board '.

No. 41, in page 14, line 25, after ' authority ', insert ' or Board '.

No. 42, in page 14, line 29, after second ' made ' insert ' and '.

No. 43, in page 15, line 1, leave out from beginning to ' shall ' and insert
' Where such a covenant imposes the limitation specified in subsection (2) above, the limitation '.—[Mr. Stanley.']

Clause 22

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO INTERVENE

Amendments made:

No. 44, in page 16, line 11, leave out from ' that ' to ' he ' in line 16 and insert ' tenants generally, or a tenant or tenants of a particular landlord, or tenants of a description of landlords have or may have difficulty in exercising the right to buy effectively and expeditiously '.

No. 45, in page 16, line 19, leave out ' 24 ' and insert ' 72 '.

No. 46, in page 17, line 28, leave out from beginning to ' shall ' in line 30 and insert—
' Where the Secretary of State exercises his powers under this section with respect to any secure tenants of a landlord he may calculate, in such manner and on such assumptions as he may determine, the cost incurred by him in doing so and certify a sum as representing those costs; and any sum so certified '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER I

Amendments made:

No. 47, in page 19, line 25, leave out from ' person ' to ' would ' in line 26.

No. 48, in page 19, line 27, leave out ' the ' and insert—
' (a) an authority not within the definition of "local authority" in section 49(1) shall be deemed to have been a local authority within that definition if it was the predecessor of such an authority; and
(b) a '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 27

SECURE TENANCIES

Mr. John Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 19, line 35, after ' tenancy ', insert
' for any residential occupier of the dwelling as defined in subsection (6) below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 50, in page 20, line 27, at end add—
' (6)(a) A person is a residential occupier for the purposes of this Act if he is granted the right to occupy as a residence a dwelling by virtue of any contractual arrangement.
(b)An arrangement is a contractual arrangement for the purposes of subsection 1 of this section regardless of whether con sideration for the said right to occupy as a residence is by payment of money, provision of goods or performance of services and regardless of whether either the said right to occupy or the consideration afore mentioned is the sole or principal purpose of the said arrangement or only a subsidiary part of the said arrangement or collateral.
(c)For the purposes of subsection 1 of this section a person shall be considered to occupy a dwelling as a residence if either—

(i) it is that person's only residence; or
(ii) it is one of that person's residences; or
(iii) that person has a genuine intention of resuming residence in that dwelling.

(d)For the purposes of this section, once the conditions of subsection 1 are fulfilled, a person shall be deemed to fulfil the conditions of subsection 3 unless or until a Court otherwise declares.
(e)For the purposes of this section a person shall not be prevented from being a residential occupier within the meaning of subsection 1 by reason of the fact that he does not have the right to the exclusive possession of any part of the dwelling occupied by him.'.

Mr. Tilley: Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 go together. We had difficulty in deciding where amendment No. 49 should go. If the amendment were accepted, several consequential amendments would have to be made to the Bill and to the Rent Act 1977. The two amendments are far-reaching. Their purpose is to close most of the loopholes in the Rent Acts at a stroke. Greedy private landlords have been using those loopholes during the past five years to exploit, harass and oppress their tenants. That is particularly true in large cities and, above all, in London.
The Department of the Environment reviewed the Rent Acts. The review sparked off many submissions from housing and welfare agencies. They gave evidence that evasions were taking place. The Citizens Advice Bureaux made a survey of 134 of their offices. It discovered that within a period of six months they had received 740 complaints referring to evasions of the Rent Act. The complaints covered many different types of evasion, including phoney holiday lettings, non-exclusive agreements, and licences. My hon. Friends and I provided details of such evasions in Committee. The evasions had one feature in common, namely, that they give maximum profits to the landlord and minimum security to the tenant.
The amendment would give a new meaning to the protection of tenants under the law. In addition to the 740 complaints received by the Citizens Advice Bureaux, hundreds and thousands of people may not have known that such help was available. Some of those who knew that such help was available may not have dared to ask for it, for fear that they would lose their homes or incur greater rent increases.
I shall give one example that occurred in my constituency. The example was given by the Lambeth law centre. It states:
 Mr. E. was a tenant of a landlord, who owns several houses in Lambeth. She specialises in exploiting ' the Rent Act loopholes '. In one house there may be a tenant in ' bed and breakfast ' living on the ground floor, a ' licensee ' living on the middle floor, and someone on ' holiday ' on the top floor. The police have been called in on several occasions by tenants who have returned home to find paint strewn over the furniture. In Mr. E's case, he came home after his ' one year holiday' had just expired to find the front door locked and his belongings in the street The next day

the front door was smashed giving the false impression that he had attempted to break back in. An injunction was obtained to restore him to the flat. The landlord refused to comply with the order and it was only when she had been found in contempt of court that she finally let him back in.
That is an example of the type of thing that is happening.
In response to our approaches, the Government have said that there is insufficient evidence of such evasions for any change in legislation to be made. However, the Government have ignored the evidence. They have failed in their duty to carry out a deeper investigation. An investigation is necessary if the full evidence is to be brought forward. Such evidence could be found, if only the Government were prepared to look for it
6 pm
Two years ago, in a press release of August 1978, the Small Landlords Association, which had its headquarters in Lambeth, said:
 Increasingly, however, landlords are using licences as means of circumventing the penal provisions of the Rent Acts.
That was a quite open admission of the way in which tenants' security was being undermined.
I summarise the legislative position by quoting from a document entitled "The Laws that Leak" compiled by the Garratt Lane law centre, before that body was the victim of Tory cuts in Wandsworth. It said:
 The maze of statute law created by Parliament during this century has recently been consolidated in two further pieces of legislation—the 1977 Rent Act and the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act. However, this has done little to make the statutory framework more effective: it remains incomprehensible to most tenants and many lawyers and lay advisors, a mystifying accumulation of different legislative regimes, uneasily grafted onto old common law distinctions. It is an uncertain guide to rights and responsibilities on the one hand and a welcome resource for landlords seeking to evade its operation on the other.
Parallel to this work of Parliament and compounding the confusion is a body of case law resulting from the activities of the judiciary—this case law, rather than merely clarifying the fine points of legislation, has had, in several instances, the broad effect of undermining its intended impact by juggling with the concepts on which it has been built. The result is a system, the complexity of which stems as much from its own inconsistencies as from the variety of situations it is seeking to regulate.


It is to meet that situation that I have framed these two amendments. Their purpose is to cut through the legal maze by saying that the legal definition of the tenant who has a right to protection shall be the commonsense definition In other words, the protected tenant should be the person who lives in the dwelling after agreeing to pay a regular amount to the owner of that dwelling for the privilege of living in it. That is the commonsense meaning of "tenant" and that is what I believe its legal meaning should be. Indeed, I use the phrase "residential occupier" to cover that.
As it stands, the Bill creates new loopholes for landlords to exploit—the short-hold tenancies, the assured tenancies, and so on. I hope that at the eleventh hour the Government will accept the spirit, if not the letter, of the amendment. I hope that by now they realise that by putting this Bill through, particularly in respect of the private sector, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction at the next general election when the embittered tenants who have suffered as a result of the Bill will express their anger in the ballot box.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I confess that I listened to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) with some surprise. Nothing in clause 27 has anything to do with the Rent Acts or with private tenants. The whole basis of the hon. Member's speech, ending in his peroration and his appeal to the private tenant, has absolutely nothing to do with secure public sector tenancies. Therefore, he will forgive me if I find it a little difficult to respond to his point. I could repeat the speeches that I made in Committee on holiday lets and so on, but they would not be relevant to his argument.
The amendment that has been proposed is a major one in that it deals with one of the most basic clauses of the Bill—defining the secure tenant for the purpose of the right to buy. I need not remind the hon. Member that only the secure tenant has that right and therefore it is very important to get that definition correct. We have retained a basic framework of the definition that was in the Labour Government's Housing Act—that an individual tenant who occupies a separate dwelling as his only principal home should be a secure tenant. The amendment seeks

to alter fundamentally that definition by importing a totally new concept of "residential occupier" and giving that term a wide definition. The hon. Member will recall the hours of debate in Committee on some of the individual issues that he has raised. I do not propose to discuss them again today, because they are not relevant to this section of the Bill.
I wonder whether the hon. Member realises that his amendment would, for example, make secure all those who lived in local authority hostel accommodation. I think that even the hon. Member was convinced at the end of my Committee argument that that was not sensible. Security is, in most cases, unnecessary for hostel dwellers and would create enormous problems for the landlords. Similarly the amendment would make secure sharers who may have an individual licence, but share all but a bedroom. Again, it is not appropriate that tenants should be secure in these conditions because the arrangements are temporary and because of the sheer practical difficulties that landlords would experience as a result. How would people succeed in sharing the accommodation in practice? It simply would not work.
The right to buy would, under the amendment, be extended to all those tenants. I do not believe that the lion. Gentleman intended that, because I cannot see him joining the bandwagon of those who wish to extend the right to buy. However, if he temporarily uses that bandwagon for his amendment, I always welcome a sinner. But I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will understand that his very good speech did not add much because it was not relevant to the clause under discussion.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 33

GROUNDS AND ORDERS FOR POSSESSION

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 23, line 18, leave out from ' begun ' to end of line 19.
This is a simple amendment, which I hope the Minister will consider carefully. If he is unable to agree to it now, I hope


that he will have another look at it between now and when the Bill is debated in another place. It relates to the provision in clause 33 whereby a local authority which wishes to take possession proceedings against a secure tenant must give notice of the proposed grounds for possession before so doing. As presumably the purpose of serving such a notice is to enable the tenant to remedy any alleged default before proceedings are served, if a local authority can change its ground after service of the notice, there is always the possibility of a tenant being taken by surprise at the hearing when the action is being taken against him. Thus, he will not have the opportunity to put right the new matters about which the complaint is made.
Possibly one could trust the court to exercise discretion in order to ensure that the tenant is given the opportunity to put matters right, but that is not particularly satisfactory. It goes against every tenet of natural justice that a tenant arriving at the court should find that the landlord has decided to change the reason for taking action against him. The ground should be quite clearly specified before the tenant arrives in the court.
It does not improve the Bill to leave in the offending words. This is possibly a Draconian measure which could be misused by some local authorities. I hope that that would not occur, but tenants could be placed in the position whereby they did not receive their natural rights of justice when they appeared in court. I urge the Minister to give an undertaking at least to look at this matter between now and the next discussion on the Bill. I might be prepared to seek to withdraw the amendment if I were to receive that undertaking.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I cannot be as helpful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) this time. I hope that when I have explained the matter to him he will appreciate why.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment would remove what the Government believe is a sensible provision that allows a landlord, with the leave of the court, to add to or alter the ground for possession specified in the notice that a landlord seeking possession will have to serve under clause 32. Without that

provision the landlord could not do so without going through the process of serving a new notice and possibly being subjected to delay.
Imagine the situation where leave is sought to add to or alter the ground. A tenant may have been given a notice stating that possession is being sought because his conduct has been a nuisance to neighbours under ground 2 of schedule 4. The tenant may then fall into rent arrears. Clearly it is right that the court should be aware of that and consider those issues together.
The requirement that the court's leave must be obtained will ensure that a tenant's rights are protected and that he is given sufficient time to prepare his case where a new ground has been added or substituted.

Mr. Alton: There may be other factors that the court should take into account when considering reasons for possessing property. However, if a tenant is preparing his case on the basis that he has been a nuisance to a neighbour, it is unfair to spring a further reason on him, such as rent arrears, when he arrives at court. I have chaired local authority eviction sub-committees and I know that a tenant is sometimes not aware of rent arrears. He may, for instance, have left his wife to pay the rent, and she may not have told him of financial problems.

Mr. Finsberg: I repeat that the requirement that the court's leave must be obtained will ensure that a tenant's rights are protected and that he is given sufficient time to prepare his case where a new ground has been added or substituted. The hon. Gentleman may have missed that point when he was trying to intervene.
The protection is there. It would be wrong to remove that possibility from the Bill, which may then mean two court cases with resulting delay. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would want that. The court's involvement in the procedure safeguards the tenant's interest. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 23, line 25, leave out '13' and insert '14'.
I am confident that this amendment fits precisely into the Bill at precisely this point.
We do not lightly suggest new grounds for evicting council tenants. However, local authorities need flexibility and speed to deal with cases of divided families, particularly women with children who have been deserted or have left home because of violence. The Minister said yesterday:
 the Bill deliberately does not interfere with local authorities' allocation procedures … We believe that it is right that the local basic responsibility for this sort of allocation should be that of the local authority."—[Official Report, 19 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 132.]
The Bill interferes with the ability of local authorities to decide their allocation policy in such circumstances. The security of tenure provision means that local authorities cannot take the swift and compassionate decisions that they have been able to in the past. Clause 36 also states that a local authority tenancy can only be assigned under the Matrimonial Causes Act. That is a method of dealing with the problem of a divided family in the medium term, but the process can take months and in some cases years. It does not apply if the couple are not legally married.

Clause 36 and the general security of tenure in the Bill remove flexibility from local authorities and, also ignore the changes in society, such as the increased number of divorces, of people living together who are not married and of women who are not prepared to tolerate violence at home. Women leave their homes, which in many cases are owned by local authorities, for their own sake and the sake of their children. Under the Bill such women will be under considerable pressure to return to a violent home. Alternatively, they will not be provided with suitable local authority accommodation with the speed necessary for the family to succeed in the new circumstances.

I quote two decisions made by a South London borough—not the borough of Lambeth—which would not be possible under the Bill. In the first case, the husband was a heroin addict, violent towards his wife. She left with the children and went to stay with her mother. She began divorce proceedings in August. In October, well before the divorce was settled,

the local authority committee decided that the husband should be asked to leave and the tenancy given to the wife. The second case concerned a husband, wife and two daughters, aged six and seven. The woman left home because of violence, and lived with various friends for a year. She was then admitted to homeless family accommodation. The committee decided to give the sole tenancy to the wife and make and offer of a one bedroomed tower-block flat to the husband. Those decisions were swift and compassionate. Under the Bill the council would not be in a position to regain possession of the family home, even though only one spouse, usually the man, would be there on his own. That family house, of which there is a shortage, would therefore be grossly under-occupied.

Where the council is willing only to rehouse the spouse and children in the original home, it will be unable to evict the remaining spouse. Even if there were an injunction under the Domestic and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, there would be a long gap between the end of such an injunction, which courts have clearly stated can only be temporary, and settlements under the Matrimonial Homes Act. If the couple were not legally married, there could be no action under the Matrimonial Homes Act.

A council that cannot get possession of the original home may be reluctant to accept the wife and children as unintentional homeless under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. There may be pressure on the family to return to the original home or for the children to be taken into care. That sort of thing is happening at the moment.

The problem in explaining the consequences of the Bill is that the practices of local authorities in such matters differ considerably. Some councils are much more sympathetic than others. If the new ground is not included, the good authorities will stop taking the beneficial actions that they take at present and the comparatively bad authorities will have an excuse to refuse to meet their obligations under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.

We ask the Government to accept an extra ground for eviction by local authorities, even though we do not like undermining the principle of security of tenure


for local authority tenants. If the amendment is not accepted the Bill will take away an important discretion of local authorities—a discretion that, however they exercise it, must tend to be to the benefit of those involved, who are often women and children at a crisis point who need as much help as possible, not only from local authorities, but from all the statutory organisations involved.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and I am a little concerned that his amendment would prejudge the decision of the court. Such cases are difficult, particularly with a couple who live together but are not married. The amendment would give to habitees equal rights with those of a divorcing spouse.

Mr. Tilley: I am not trying to intro duce changes; I am trying to preserve the present situation in which the majority of local authorities take such decisions either when the custody issue has been resolved or when it is clear which way it will be resolved. I am not suggesting that local authorities should change what they are doing, but that they should be allowed to continue to do what they do at present.

Mr. Shersby: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but we are entering a difficult area. Local authorities have a great deal of discretion, but if we add the amendment to the Bill, we shall create a statutory ground for possession for this group of people. The existing arrangements are generally adequate, particularly when the court is involved and can make corrections.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: We should not lose sight of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). There is a progression in these matters and it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if we found that by incorporating the amendment we got a step ahead of the courts. That would be undesirable.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) made important points about battered wives, violence and injunctions. I am advised that an injunction to allow the wife back into the home is temporary, but it can be repeated until the divorce,

when the court can transfer. Part of the hon. Gentleman's fear is covered.
The hon. Gentleman has tried to convince the House that there are good reasons why public sector landlords should have available a ground for possession that they can use to ensure that the tenancy of the former matrimonial home goes to the "right" party—that, in itself, raises a query—when the marriage or the partnership breaks up or to evict a tenant when the remainder of the family has been rehoused elsewhere.
The amendment would give those landlords an extraordinary responsibility. It would give them the right to judge, in advance of a court decision about the outcome of a marriage and questions of custody and property, who should be allowed to remain in the matrimonial home.
I am told that landlords might normally reallocate the home to the spouse who has custody of the children, but who is to know what the final custody arrangements will be? I am not satisfied that local authorities and other landlords would want to be put prematurely in a position of formally ordering the accommodation arrangements of separated families unless the parties agreed voluntarily about the tenancy of the former home—in which case, no special ground for possession would be needed.

Mr. Tilley: The hon. Gentleman is not recognising the point that I made in an intervention when the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was speaking that we are not talking about giving local authorities extra abilities to decide, but are saying that they should be able to have the existing rights that they have exercised many times.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to what is called openly the eviction sub-committee in Liverpool. Many housing committees have similar sub-committees, though they are usually called, more diplomatically, housing management sub-committees. I am sure that the Under-Secretary and many of his colleagues have served on such committees and taken exactly the decisions that the hon. Gentleman is saying that local authorities should not be able to take.
It has been stated clearly by judges that domestic violence injunctions are only


temporary and that women cannot be certain of obtaining as many injunctions as they need to span the vast gap of the law's delay in divorce cases. In some cases women will get enough injunctions, but in some cases they will not. It depends on the judge.

Mr. Finsberg: I am not a lawyer, but my advice is that it is possible that the injunctions can be reissued by the court until the divorce takes place.
The amendment would provide a new ground for possession. It is not right to say that local authorities already have that power.

Mr. John Sever: Presumably the Minister agrees that if a local authority is asked to make a decision in advance of a custody decision it need not necessarily do so. My hon. Friend is asking only for the provision of a framework within which a local authority could make that decision; he is not asking that it should necessarily have to do so.

Mr. Finsberg: I am not sure that I was wise to give way. By the time I finish I may have covered that point. The amendment would require two homes to be provided by a landlord whenever a family splits up. That may frequently be the outcome anyway, but I do not think that it is desirable or practical to impose such an obligation.
If the landlord chooses to rehouse the party who has left the home, or who, as a result of matrimonial proceedings has been obliged to move out, that is its business. We are not interfering with that. However, it should be a matter for the landlord's judgment—to use the words of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central—and not for the Bill.
6.30 pm
The provisions of certain existing legislation dealing with the matrimonial home are extended to secure tenancies by the Bill. It is possible for one spouse to apply to the court to have the tenancy transferred to the other spouse, who is a tenant, but divorced or legally separated. At that stage, landlords can take the necessary steps on the basis of the relevant court judgment.
That is the crux of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge

(Mr. Shersby) spotted immediately. This, amendment would jump the gun. I still do not believe that that is right. As I said, at that stage landlords can take the necessary steps on the basis of the relevant court judgments. Therefore, I see no case for empowering them to do so in the manner proposed by this amendment. In general, we should not provide a means whereby certain aspects of family break-up and divorce can be anticipated or prejudged.
I invite the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central to agree, on reflection, that it would be wiser to ask leave to withdraw this amendment rather than to put it to a vote, because at that stage I would have to advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Tilley: I must put the record
straight. The Minister says that this amendment would impose on local authorities a decision to rehouse both halves of a broken relationship. It does not impose anything on local authorities. It provides that they may—if they wish—take proceedings in order to move into smaller accommodation the spouse who no longer has the other spouse living with him or her. It gives a discretion to the local authority. It does not add a new power.
Before the Bill was introduced, local authorities could evict any tenant for any reason. Now there is security of tenure. In this case the Bill is consigning women and children to possible bad housing conditions for long periods, and certainly to distress and uncertainty while they wait for new housing. I hope that the Minister will accept that we are not suggesting that local authorities must rehouse as soon as a family breaks up, but that they should have the option to do so on the merits of individual cases.

Mr. Finsberg: Having listened again to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central I find that he has not persuaded me to alter the reasoning that I put to the House earlier. Again, I invite him to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in most cases local authorities are not currently in the habit of transferring a tenancy until marital issues—normally the custody of children—have been settled by the courts? The normal custom, according to my experience, is


for the tenancy to be transferred to or be left with the spouse who has been given the custody of the children. In most cases that is the wife. That is a sensible and practical procedure, and it should not be disturbed unless the courts decide that it should be disturbed. The present position is satisfactory, because the courts will upset a decision of a local authority or transfer the tenancy to a person who does not have the custody of the children only in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind the House that I allowed what amounted to a second speech to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). They were long interventions. On Report I have been very generous, as hon. Members will know.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 34

SUBLETTING AND LODGERS

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment:
No. 168, in page 23, line 37, leave out from ' allow ' to end of line 38 and insert
' any persons to reside as lodgers in the dwelling-house.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 169, in page 23, line 43, leave out from ' house ' to end of line 45.
No. 170, in clause 35, page 24, line 16, leave out ' lodger or '.

Mr. Alton: These amendments would give council tenants unrestricted rights to take in lodgers, instead of the qualified right to take in lodgers with the express consent of the local authority. The restriction on subletting would remain.
I believe that in this Bill the Government are moving in the right direction by encouraging the use of property and encouraging people to take in lodgers. If the Minister believes that there is some danger without these amendments, and without the right of a local authority to intervene and interfere in a decision on the question whether a tenant takes in a lodger, and if he believes that there may be a danger of overcrowding, I remind

him that part IV of the 1957 Act would prevent that in any case. Therefore, I ask the Minister why it is necessary to put a bureaucratic wedge between the tenant and his would-be lodger.
The Government's intention, as expressed in previous debates, is to try to remove as much bureaucracy as possible. Indeed, the Secretary of State is constantly at pains to point out how he has removed red tape and restrictions. These amendments will give the Government the opportunity to do the same again and to enable people to take in lodgers without the local authority interfering in the tenant's decision.
Throughout the Bill the Government are trying to put an emphasis on greater responsibility among council tenants. They are suggesting that there should be a series of new rights for council tenants. I commend that, but a tenant should be able to decide whether to take in a lodger without going to a local authority.
At a time when rents are rising by alarming amounts, when many tenants are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their rent bills, and when rent arrears are running at up to £2 million or £3 million in some of our cities, it is reasonable to try to encourage local authority tenants to find ways of cutting their overheads. Obviously, if council tenants choose to take in lodgers, that is one way of reducing budgets, and ensuring a contribution to the cost of living in those properties. It is also a way of ensuring that local authorities are receiving rents and not having to take recourse to the sort of proceedings that have been referred to in previous debates. Above all, it will ensure that houses, many of which are under-occupied at present, are put into full use.
All hon. Members can give examples of homes which are under-occupied and where, for instance, elderly people are living in their matrimonial home and have no intention of moving out, whatever encouragements they may be given to move into flats, hostel accommodation or sheltered accommodation. Many of those people are experiencing substantial difficulty in paying the rent. It would save them the problem of having to take recourse to rent and rate rebates, and it would save them having to apply for rent allowances, supplementary benefits and


so on, many of which they regard as charity. It would enable them at the same time to use their homes to rather better housing advantage. In that way, many of the single homeless—often the most forgotten groups of people on local authority housing waiting lists—could be assisted by using properties that otherwise would not be used to their full capability.
The Minister was very helpful earlier in the debate, and I shall ask him once again, if he cannot accept the amendment now, at least to consider my arguments. It is very much in the spirit of the Bill that there should be an extension of local authorities' rights. It is also very much in the spirit of what the Secretary of State has said—that bureaucratic controls should be removed from people and that they should be liberated from the shackles of red tape; that they should not have to go to middlemen for decisions to be made about the places where they live.
It is in that spirit that I ask the Minister to look at the amendment between now and the discussions which will take place on the Bill in another place. If he will give that undertaking, I shall on that basis be only too pleased to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In Committee we had a debate on this question which proceeded on rather different lines. It might help if I were to read what I said when responding to a different amendment which dealt with family lodgers. I said:
 I must set in context the whole purpose of this clause. It is our intention to give an absolute right to tenants to take in family lodgers. That is the whole basis of the provision … We believe that it is right that family members can be lodged without consent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 28 February 1980, c. 731.]
I have listened to what the hon Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) said and I am glad that he endorses the view we take, that the right to have lodgers is an important one. We have given, as I have just quoted, an absolute right to tenants to take in members of their families as lodgers. We believe that that is very important and the right thing to do.
We are trying to give tenants a greater measure of freedom. All of us who have served in local government will know that

the petty bureaucracy exercised by many housing committees, under all political colours, does not regard the tenant as a particularly important person; he is a statistic. We have tried to take the view in this legislation that the local authority tenant has for the first time to be given certain rights, and one of them is the right to take in a family lodger.
I believe that there is a difference to be found when we examine the position of lodgers who are not members of the tenant's family. We are not putting an undue restriction on a tenant. All he has to do is to get the landlord's consent, and the landlord cannot withhold it unreasonably. I am certain that it would be forthcoming in the vast majority of cases. But the property is, after all, the landlord's, and if the tenant wants to take in commercially a lodger who is a complete stranger, it is surely reasonable that the landlord should have some say in the matter and be able to object, if he has good reason.
In the last resort, the need for consent may also be a protection to the potential lodger—if, for example, alterations were planned which would affect the accommodation, or if the lodger would be contributing and start off the chain reaction of overcrowding.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If the Minister thinks that the property is the landlord's, and that the landlord has some right over what happens to the property, why, in this legislation, is he forcing the landlord to sell against his will? Does not the Minister accept that when sitting tenants have bought, they will have the freedom to take in anyone they want, whether they are members of the family or not? Should not that same right be extended to those tenants who do not wish to buy?

Mr. Finsberg: We are back to Second Reading speeches on the principle of the right to buy. I do not intend to swallow that fly. All I will say is that the tenant who takes in a lodger will presumably have chosen not to exercise his right to buy.
I must return to the lucid—but I think wrong—argument put forward by the hon. Member for Edge Hill. I have said that it may be a protection to the potential lodger, for the two reasons that I adduced—that alterations were planned, or that


the lodger might start the chain reaction of overcrowding.

Mr. Alton: How does the Minister square his argument with the status of the private tenant in the private sector who decides to take in a lodger and does not necessarily have to go to the landlord before deciding to do that? In many cases that discretion is given quite easily to private tenants, without any recourse to the landlord. Indeed, in those circumstances, all the arguments that I have applied to the council tenant could be applied to the private tenant.

Mr. Finsberg: There is a great distinction, as we have tried to show, between the public tenant and the private tenant. In a substantial number of cases the private tenant will have a rent book which will have conditions. He may be a monthly, a quarterly or a hold-over tenant enjoying a lease which makes specific reference to sub-letting and to lodgers. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we ought not to confuse the issue, because in that sphere the rights exist in different ways. We are trying to balance, in the case of the local authority tenant, the management responsibilities of the local authority with the tenant's rights which we are trying to give him.
I have spelt out two reasons why I believe the protection is needed. There could be other circumstances where it would be equally reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent—where, for example, the landlord was about to serve notice seeking possession against the tenant himself. I do not think that the lodger would be particularly happy to have come into the home and then found that his sub-landlord was about to have proceedings commenced against him.
If the local authority has to be consulted and give its consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, that position would not arise. I think that giving an absolute right to take in lodgers who are not members of a tenant's family might not be in the best interests of those concerned. The tenant's freedom has, at every point in the Bill, to be balanced against management considerations. He can go to court if he is not satisfied. We have made that clear. I am certain that, in the case of non-family lodgers, we are

right to require landlord consent in the first place.
I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 37

REIMBURSEMENT OF COST OF TENANT'S IMPROVEMENTS

Amendment made:

No. 52, in page 25, line 15, leave out from the beginning to end of line 16.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 38

RENT NOT TO BE INCREASED ON ACCOUNT OF TENANT'S IMPROVEMENTS

Amendments made:

No. 53, in page 25, line 37, after ' is ', insert ' or was '.

No. 54, in page 25, line 40, leave out from ' determining ' to ' whether ' in line 42 and insert—
' (a) at any time whilst he is a secure tenant of that dwelling-house; or
(b) if he has died and on his death the tenancy vested in his spouse under section 29, at any time whilst his spouse is a secure tenant of that dwelling-house; '.—

[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 45

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE COST OF TRANSFERS AND EXCHANGES

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 31, line 15, at end insert—
' (3) No local authority may charge fees or may levy any charges in respect of the costs of facilitating moves to and from houses '.
The amendment is reasonable and is in the spirit of the tenants' charter, which it seeks to amend. One of the objectives that the Government have claimed for the Bill is to increase mobility within the public rented sector. A general criticism that is made by many people—not least Conservative Members—of the public sector is that there is lack of mobility. The amendment seeks to facilitate mobility and to prevent local authorities


from putting a barrier in the way of mobility within the public rented sector. It is particularly important because the Government have failed to include in their tenants' charter those clauses that were in the Labour Government's Housing Bill—which fell because of the general election—that were specifically designed to encourage and develop mobility "n the public rented sector.
Two features of the Labour Bill have been excluded from this measure. The first would have enabled freer access to local authority housing lists for many categories of people. The other would have required local authorities to make available a certain percentage of accommodation for letting to people moving into the area for employment purposes.
I repeat that those two clauses of the Labour Bill have been excluded from this measure. That is strange when one recalls that one of the arguments put forward by the Government for the right-to-buy provisions is that they will help to encourage mobility. Measures to help and encourage mobility in the public rented sector among tenants who do not wish to buy have not been developed in the tenants' charter as one would have wished.
The Government have said that they wish to see better use made of existing housing stock. They wish local authorities to be involved in exchanges and transfers and in allowing people to move freely within their area from one council unit of accommodation to another. It would be difficult to achieve the free movement of tenants between houses within the same local authority area if that authority were to charge fees to those who were allowed a transfer or who had managed to organise a mutual exchange—that is an exchange between one council tenant and another. The amendment would make it illegal to levy such a fee. It would outlaw the charging of fees to people who gain access to a transfer or exchange list or who have been registered with a local authority exchange bureau.
The Minister may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because many local authorities would not engage in the bad practice of levying charges for transfers or exchanges, but there have been instances in which local authorities have levied such charges. There has recently

been speculation in the newspapers that certain local authorities have seen this as a way of trying to raise money in the present difficult economic situation, where the rate support grant and other subsidies have been reduced.
If the Government believe that that is a bad practice—even if they argue that it does not often happen—they should ensure by statutory means that it cannot be carried out. The Government have agreed that a large part of the tenants' charter gives statutory backing to what is already good practice and usual custom among progressive local authorities. The amendment would outlaw a bad practice, albeit a practice pursued by only a few local authorities.
Support has been given across the whole political spectrum to the concept of increased mobility. The CBI has written to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland saying:
 We are strongly in favour of the easing of residential requirements on the allocation of local authority housing to encourage labour mobility and, to that end, we wholeheartedly support the contents of clause 25 of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill ",
which are not included in this Bill. The CBI also say:
 No area of public policy operates more insidiously to restrict the labour market than does housing … No single measure of Government policy is more important

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required under the terms of the guillotine motion to put Government amendment No. 92.

Schedule 3

TENANCIES WHICH ARE NOT SECURE TENANCIES

Amendment made:

No. 92, in page 94, line 10, leave out

' period ' and insert

' year '.—[Mr Heseltine.]

Clause 51

PROTECTED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES

Mr. Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 33, line 39, leave out ' either '.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 56. in


page 33, line 40, leave out from ' granted ' to end of line 43 and insert
' or a certificate of Fair Rent has been issued for the dwelling under section 69 the 1977 Act.'.
No. 57, in page 33, line 43, at end insert—
' (d) The dwelling has been entered on a register of shorthold dwellings maintained by the local authority and made available at its principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours without charge. The Secretary of State shall by order lay down the standards to amenities, repair, &c. which the local authority shall apply in deciding whether to approve the registration of a shorthold property. For the purposes of this section "local authority "means the council of a district, the council of a London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of the Isles of Scilly.'.
No. 172, in page 33, line 43, at end insert—
' (d) the dwelling house possesses at all times throughout the tenancy the amenities prescribed by Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1974.'.
No. 58, in page 34, line 4, at end insert
' or of any dwelling house owned by the landlord proposing to grant the shorthold, or if it relates to a dwelling which was the subject of a regulated tenancy at the commencement of this Act.'
No. 59, in clause 52, page 34, line 32, at end add—
' (3) If at the expiration of a shorthold of any property the landlord wishes to create a new shorthold for that property and he does not offer the new shorthold to the sitting short-holder the local authority may, on the application of the tenant, remove the dwelling house from the register of shorthold dwellings outlined in section 51(1)(d) above.'.

Mr. Tilley: I shall speak briefly in opening the debate on the shorthold provisions in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). However, I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is in his place. I had the dubious honour of being beaten by him in two general elections in 1974. I hope that he will protest against the fact that all the safeguards that he called for in respect of shorthold tenancies in his Private Member's Bills have been thrown out by this Government.
In this amendment we are asking for a few basic safeguards—not all the desirable safeguards—for shorthold tenants. The first safeguard is that at the beginning

of the shorthold tenancy a fair rent should already have been registered so that the landlord cannot charge what he likes until the fair rent is registered. At the beginning of the tenure there should also be a check by a public authority as to the state of the accommodation being offered on shorthold.
We suggest that that should be done by a local authority keeping a register of shorthold and giving a degree of approval to standards—which we are happy the Secretary of State should lay down—before a property can be let on shorthold. Those are the first safeguards that we would like to see.
We are particularly disappointed that the Minister, who said that he was considering the possibility of ensuring that a fair rent should be established at the beginning of a shorthold tenancy, has not tabled an amendment to that effect. We are, of course, delighted to offer him the opportunity of accepting our amendment, thus giving him the chance to fulfil his own promise and affording some assurance of reasonable rents at the beginning of shorthold tenure.
The second major safeguard that we seek is that at the end of his tenure the shorthold tenant should have the first refusal of continuing as a tenant, even if it is only to get another shorthold tenancy of that property if the landlord intends to continue letting the property on a shorthold basis. The reasons for that are obvious. We feel that if landlords are not under any such obligation no shorthold tenant will feel that he has even a chance of semi-permanent accommodation.
Thirdly, we do not believe that it should be possible to switch to shorthold a currently protected tenant. Such a tenant should not be switched to short-hold by being placed in other accommodation owned by the landlord, whether in the same house, the same street, the same town or even the same country. That should not be allowed, and one of our amendments seeks to meet that contingency. We do not believe that any dwelling currently covered by a protected tenancy should be switched to shorthold.
If the purpose of the Government really is to bring empty property into use at a fair rent—if that is their aim in introducing shorthold—they should be


able to accept all the safeguards that I have listed, since none of them would preclude currently empty properties being brought into use as rented accommodation at a fair rent under the shorthold provisions.
If, however, the purpose of the Government is to weaken security of tenure for all tenants progressively and to allow much more than a fair rent to be charged on currently occupied property—and we believe that the shorthold provisions will be able by various means to avoid the effect of fair rent registration—they will reject these amendments.
We are waiting to see the intentions of the Government, who cannot have it both ways. Shorthold is either intended to have the limited application to empty property to be let at fair rent—which the Government claim in their manifesto and their speeches—or the Government see short-hold as the thin end of the wedge for the destruction of security of tenure in the private sector and for ending the fair rent protection for the vast majority of tenants. I speak as a Member for an inner London constituency. In inner London and perhaps central London, in particular, the effect of the shorthold provisions could be disastrous.
There is already great pressure on private sector housing in London, even though a quarter of all such housing is in London. Because of high property values, the number of visitors and the number of people from other countries who want to live here for a short time, and because businesses are willing to pay high rents for their staffs, not only is housing for single people hard to find; family housing is not available. Old people in particular are under great pressure.
7 pm
Yesterday I received a letter from the Greater London branch of Age Concern. It refers to fears about shortholds, and says:
 As the Bill stands there is a danger that a landlord can over persuade an existing protected tenant to enter into a new shorthold tenancy with limited security of tenure. This could occur … through a move to a new dwelling or room. Some elderly people are particularly vulnerable to such apparently attractive proposals. A protective provision is therefore essential in the Bill to ensure that these tenants do not lose their security.

I can give a specific example of what can happen. Yesterday I received a letter from the Paddington Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations which gave an example of what can happen. It said:
 Lady aged 84 living in a basement near Westbourne Grove. Been there 18 years. The landlord keeps asking her to move to ' suitable alternative accommodation along the road.' If he gets a court order because it is found to be ' suitable ', what's to stop her being given a shorthold "—
and therefore having security for no longer than 12 months?
Labour Members asked about such examples many times in Committee, but they were given no satisfactory answer. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer today. There is no reason why any landlord who is letting on a protected basis, particularly in London, should not, when his tenants leave, put all his tenancies on to shorthold. A landlord who is letting and using the evasions available under the Rent Acts, such as holiday letting, or through licences, will have no incentive to switch to shorthold because if he has to charge fair rents he will at least halve the extortionate rents which he is now allowed to charge.
The prospect is that in London no permanent homes for let will be on offer. Massive key money will have to be paid for those tenancies that are on offer. A tenant will be keen to have his shorthold renewed, but that will be at the whim of the landlord. A tenant will not dare to ask for repairs or maintenance to be done. Few shortholds will last for longer than a year in London. At the end of a year a tenant will face being evicted or with living on a month-to-month tightrope, not knowing when the landlord might decide to get rid of him. A landlord will have the power to do that and, indeed, an incentive to do it, because once a dwelling is empty he can apply for the registration of a fair rent to be cancelled after two years.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is being charitable to the Government. He assumes that the Government will maintain the two-year registration period. However, under the Bill the Secretary of State has the right to reduce the registration period to a year or less. My hon. Friend is making an admirable case, but he minimises the dangers to the short-hold tenant.

Mr. Tilley: I accept my right hon. Friend's rebuke. I am painting a picture of what I believe will be the consequence of the Bill as it stands. The Government will tend not to invoke many of their secondary legislation powers. As soon as the Bill begins to bite, the Government's attempts to convince their own Back Benchers that the measure is beneficial will fail, because of the misery and extortion that will be caused by the Bill in general and the shorthold provisions in particular.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I declare an interest as an estate agent's surveyor. I am particularly worried about shorthold lettings in the private sector. The Government's keen interest is to ensure that more lettings come into the private sector. They want to provide more homes for people who wish to rent. I do not see how that is likely to result from the proposals.
I have discussed the matter with members of the professional bodies which represent landlords and others. They think that it is unlikely that many more short-hold lettings will come on tap. The reason is clear. When legislation restricts registration immediately to a fair rent, it is unlikely that many more lettings will be attracted to the market.
Many widows or widowers who live on their own who would, for instance, be attracted by the prospect of letting to a young couple are unlikely to be attracted if they have to register within 28 days of the letting, particularly since a tremendous amount of form filling is involved. Far more property could have been attracted to the market, but that will not happen. That is where the Bill goes wrong.
In the large conurbations there is already a six to eight months' wait for rent registration cases to be heard and a four to five months wait in other areas. In Camden it takes seven to eight months and in Redbridge four of five months. The reduction from three to two years will increase the number of registrations. The whole works will be gummed up by the new shortholds.
The way to tackle the problem is to allow the landlord and tenant to agree a fair rent. That fair rent must be for the duration of the tenancy and the landlord should not be able to increase that rent

during the tenancy, whether it is for one year or five years, without reference to the rent officer.
Under such a system the landlord and tenant would be free to negotiate a fair rent. After that it would be up to the landlord to apply to the rent officer if he wanted a rent increase. That would attract more landlords to let in the private sector. There is a case for many more properties to be let because that will help young couples who wish to save for a mortgage. In my experience in business and as a Member of Parliament, the type of person who will be attracted by short-hold lettings is not the type who will ask for high and increasing rents.
I ask the Minister to give further consideration to that matter. I feel that current legislation will not produce the amount of property required. Many owners who have been waiting for the new legislation will now sell their empty properties. There has been an enormous amount of empty property in the private sector for some time. The legislation will not produce the desired effect. I ask the Government seriously to consider the matter.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) would speak in the debate. I am sorry that he has not done so. There was much to be commended in the measures that he presented to the House in the past. They could have had a valuable, if marginal, effect on the privately rented sector by helping it to serve a small function, and it would be a small function in any circumstances. The short-hold provisions, as he conceived them, could have served a useful function because they were designed to attract empty property into the privately rented market.
The Government's measures, far from being likely to attract empty property, will sound the final death knell of the privately rented sector. The Government have wholly misconceived the economic and financial circumstances that prevail in that sector. They have demonstrated clearly that they have never attempted to consider the housing policy Green Paper of 1977. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Minister should look at the "Technical Volume, Part III" and the chapters dealing with the privately rented


sector. The evidence presented in that document shows:
The effect of the 1974 Rent Act on the supply of rented accommodation is uncertain. The large amount of unfurnished accommodation being re-let as late as the early nineteen seventies illustrates the dangers of relying on ' what everybody knows ' and concluding from anecdotes that the supply of furnished accommodation to rent has come nearly to a stop. The 1974 Act did not cause the supply of privately rented accommodation to dry up altogether as can be shown from a small survey of married couples (see Table IX.14 below).
There is a good deal more evidence in that document, but I shall not trouble the House with it now.
The reasons why landlords let, or do not let, are dictated principally not by the question of security of tenure, but by the substantially greater economic return that can be achieved through selling rather than letting property. That is a direct consequence of the mortgage interest tax relief, which enables somebody with a given sum to pay virtually 50 per cent. more if he is buying a property than he can afford to pay if he is renting a property. That lies at the root of the collapse of the privately rented sector, and the Rent Acts and the question of security of tenure are peripheral factors.
7.15 pm
Notwithstanding the financial incentive, the reason why property continues to be available to rent under the Rent Acts is that, at present, there is a large quantity of property which the owners have no alternative but to let. That was vividly brought out in the minority report of the Francis committee in the early 1970s, when Miss Lyndal Evans pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the property which continues to be let is property that is quite incapable of being sold. That property is incapable of being sold because it is not self-contained and does not meet building society requirements. The property could not have those amenities because it consisted mainly of property in multiple occupation, where the landlord was not able to obtain security of possession of the whole house. He would get an empty room here and an empty room there. He found that it was to his financial advantage to let it rather than to wait until the whole house was empty, when he could convert it to provide much more expensive accommodation for people other

than those to whom he was already letting.
The effect of shorthold will be that, as the landlord gains possession of one or two rooms or a flat in a property, he will be able to let that flat on shorthold. As another tenant moves out, he will be able to let the flat on shorthold. That process will continue until he has the whole building let on shorthold. Then all the tenants will be out as soon as their shorthold tenancies expire. The consequence will be that, far from building up the privately rented sector—as Conservative Members profess to believe—it will be absolutely destroyed.
In London, accommodation that is let outside the Rent Acts—through loopholes such as holiday and company let-tings—is let at rents that no family on average earnings can afford. Much the same applies in most of our cities. There are very few properties being let on tenancies outside the Rent Acts that an ordinary family can afford.
The result of the Bill will be that a property will be let for one year at a registered rent and, at the end of that year, the landlord will be able to say—as he did in the days before the 1974 Act, when we had theoretical but inoperable protection for furnished tenants—" I am willing to let you stay on, but, of course, the rent is going up." The rent will rise not by 20 or 50 per cent., but by 120, 150 or 200 per cent. The tenant who has dug himself in and made his arrangements will either have to dig into his pockets and pay such rents or move out and seek accommodation elsewhere. In practice, we know what will happen. He will pay up in order to keep his home.
The provisions in the Bill for registration of rents—unlike the provisions in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Kensington—will make the Rent Acts a dead letter for all future lettings, if the provisions work at all.
I am surprised that the Government have paid no attention to the criticisms in that radical journal The Times, which in its editorial yesterday, pointed out that under the Bill as it stands:
 The Government have attached particular importance to providing incentives to the landlord, and have therefore dropped proposals designed to safeguard the tenant's right to a ' fair rent ' and to encourage landlords to


renew tenancies unless they really do wish to take the property out of the rental market … the Bill as it stands has substantial weaknesses. There is the risk of the exploitation of tenants, many of whom will inevitably be confused about their rights. What matters still more is that reservations are so widely felt that the scheme has little chance of survival under a Labour Government.
How right that is. It was something that the Minister could have avoided if he had accepted the recommendations put forward in Committee when attempts were made to amend the Bill. He still has the chance to do that if he deals with the matter as he should in another place. Many Labour Members would be prepared to see a proper shorthold measure that would bring property back to the market. The Minister is killing the market.
Will there be chances for landlords to exploit tenants? Yes, there will be such chances. Last weekend I visited four elderly ladies, all of whom had been living in a property for between 30 and 40 years. They lived in four out of about 22 rooms in the premises that had been let. One lady was 84, and two of the others were more than 70. Their landlord would like them to leave. He is proposing to shuffle them around so that their rooms will be on one floor. That is a sensible arrangement. They would all have better accommodation. However, when I suggested to him that he should do that before the Bill became law, he immediately lost interest. I strongly suspect that what he had in mind was to shuffle them around so that they had their new tenancies shortly after the Bill became law. They would be nice shorthold tenancies with one of the nice new agreements that the Bill makes possible—and no security of tenure.
The amendments are the absolute minimum required. I do not know whether they are adequate. I accept that there is a demand and a need for privately rented accommodation which can in some respects be more flexible than other forms of tenure, particularly for young people. The majority of private rent-controlled tenants must now be elderly people. The Bill will undermine their security. It will create the virtual certainty that many of them will be exploited in future. It will ensure

that such accommodation as is now coming on to the market under Rent Act tenancies will in future be let free of control to people who probably have less need for the accommodation than those to whom it would have been let were the law to remain as it is.
I urge the Minister to think again—he still has time—and to ensure that the measure that comes back to the House from another place more closely accords with the measure presented by the hon. Member for Kensington, who I hope will speak in the debate.

Mr. Shersby: The proposal for short-hold tenancies represents one of the most important innovations that could be made to help to solve our housing problems. Having listened to the interesting and sincere speeches made by the hon. Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), I regret the mistrust and suspicion that exist between two great political parties in trying to deal with this innovation.
I respect what was said by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. I know the area that he represents. Many of the problems that he experiences in his constituency are similar to those found in the centres of many large cities. I suggest that not all the problems to which he referred are necessarily to be found in outer areas of London—for example, in the London borough of Hillingdon or in Uxbridge.
I appeal to Members of all parties to try to find a modus vivendi for this type of legislation. Let us try to reach an agreement that will enable the shorthold tenancy to be introduced into Great Britain. If it is introduced with appropriate safeguards, for both tenants and landlords, I believe that it will make a major contribution towards solving some of the housing difficulties, particularly of young people, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said.
In Uxbridge there is Brunei university, with a large number of students requiring accommodation in the area for short periods of time. Also, large numbers of houses are under-occupied. For example, a widow living in a three- or four-bed-roomed house with surplus accommodation has until now been unwilling to let that accommodation because of the


security of tenure provisions and the general feeling that, once a tenant is in, he or she is there for good and there is no way in which the owner can gain repossession. The introduction of short-hold could radically change that situation and make possible the letting of desirable accommodation for young people, many of whom are students desperately requiring quiet rooms in decent homes in which to pursue their studies. It is for that reason, and many others, that I am a strong supporter of the Bill.
I should like to refer to the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central. He called for the registration of a fair rent at the beginning of the shorthold. Undoubtedly there are problems. One problem was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), namely, the considerable clogging up of the system, let alone the position that will obtain when these provisions become law.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central rightly asks for a decent standard of accommodation to be available for short-hold lettings. I support the view that accommodation should be of a decent standard. My only concern is whether the way in which it is proposed to go about it—a register of shorthold lettings, the involvement of local authorities and the inevitable administrative action that will be necessary—will slow down the process and thus delay the time when this additional accommodation will become available.

Mr. Straw: I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he is dissatisfied with the absence of any proper conditions about the standard of dwellings. Is he aware that, although they may be a little cumbersome, the proposals for the register were included in the Housing (Shorthold Tenancies) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)? We have simply lifted them lock, stock and barrel and incorporated them into our amendments.

Mr. Shersby: I am aware of that situation. The reason for my awareness—the hon. Gentleman may not know this—is that I am one of those who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), have sponsored the Housing (Shorthold

Tenancies) Bill on every occasion on which it has been introduced since my hon. Friend first took this initiative.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he has changed his mind since he acted as a sponsor? The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), said that he changed his mind because of the weight of office. Having become a member of the Government, he realised the error of his ways because of the administrative problems that had been pointed out to him by civil servants. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he has had a conversion on the road to government?

Mr. Shersby: I did not say that I had had a conversion on the road to government. I was appealing for a bipartisan spirit in the House to try to reach agreement on this innovation. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, no doubt he will wish to assure me and others of my hon. Friends who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that the proposals in the Bill are adequate. I shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say before I decide on my position.
I should like to return to this cross-Bench appeal for support of the short-hold concept. Let us consider the position if the House of Commons finds it impossible to reach agreement on the conditions that should surround this type of tenancy. I suggest that the outcome will be that many young people—indeed, many single people—will be deprived of accommodation which we all know exists in the centres of big cities, in suburban areas and even in the countryside. It is to that end that I direct my remarks. I want to try to get some cross-Bench co-operation to enact this provision, which I believe is vital.

Mr. Tilley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making the point that was made on Second Reading by the Secretary of State and by many others asking for consensus on this issue. In Committee we put down many amendments on shorthold. None of them was a wrecking amendment in any sense. Whatever hon. Members who served on the Committee may have thought about some of the amendments, the vast majority were taken chapter and verse from the Bill sponsored


by the hon. Gentleman. We hoped that, perhaps not all, but possibly some, even one or two, of those safeguards would be accepted by the Government, but they rejected every one.
The way to put pressure on the Government to make the slightest concession, which would have made a consensus possible, was for the sponsors of that Private Member's Bill to say to the Government and to the public as soon as this Bill was published "We shall not vote for it unless some of the safeguards that we think essential are included". If that had happened, it would have been a real contribution towards achieving a negotiated consensus, instead of the vapid remarks that the hon. Gentleman is now making. He knows perfectly well that entrenched positions have been taken up.

Mr. Shersby: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that my remarks are vapid. They are intended to be a sincere contribution to the debate. I have been a Member of this House for seven years—for a little longer than the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I have considerable experience of local government. Also like him, and like every hon. Member of the House, I spend every Friday evening talking to my constituents, many of whom require accommodation that would be made available by shorthold.
My remarks are directed to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and also to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I stand in my place in an attempt, once again, to see whether the House can reach agreement on what I believe to be the greatest innovation in housing. I accept that Opposition Members have reservations. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches also have reservations. I appeal for the opportunity, possibly tonight, or perhaps following further consideration, and perhaps including amendments in another place, to find a way to put this proposal on to the statute book with all-party agreement so that it will stick and provide protection for tenants and landlords. My object and the purpose of my remarks is to unlock this accommodation.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman makes his appeal across the Floor of the House and, incidentally, to his hon. Friend

the Minister for Housing and Construction. I suggest that he should make his appeal primarily to the Minister. We on this side are ready to re-assess our position, provided that the Government will move on matters which we regard as fundamental to the protection of these tenants. I shall make that clear when I speak in the debate. The Government have shown no sign of moving.
Hundreds of amendments have been put down by the Government. If they had had a mind to achieve cross-party agreement on this issue, they could have put down amendments which we would find acceptable. We would have reassessed our position. That remains our approach. I advise the hon. Gentleman to make his appeal to the Minister. Only movement by the Minister, away from the Bill as it stands, can change the Opposition's position.

Mr. Shersby: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard it, and I hope that he will take serious account of those views. I trust that the Government will regard it as a matter of the highest possible priority that agreement should be reached. There is not an hon. Member of the House, I believe, who would not agree that it is worth giving shorthold a go. It is
possible that Parliament will not get the issue right first time. Some of the fears that have been expressed may or may not be justified. If that is the case, I have no doubt that the Government, or Parliament, will take the necessary corrective action. My appeal, both to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Opposition Members, is for us to get together, to put aside any preconceived notions about this innovation and to see whether we can turn the key to accommodation that is available and should be occupied by people in desperate need of a home.
Many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young people, and those who are not so young, need short-term accommodation. They include couples without families who do not require the typical type of local authority accommodation or accommodation in the private sector, but who would find the proposal that we are discussing acceptable. Many elderly widows need a supplement to their income to make their lives more tolerable and would appreciate the company that the


advent of a young couple, or a young man or a young woman studying in their home, would provide. We have the opportunity, I believe, to make a large contribution to solving the problem of loneliness that exists among the increasing number of elderly people in the community. Those are the reasons in my mind as I speak in this debate. That is why I appeal for co-operation.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman refers to loneliness and the provision of accommodation. This matter is covered by the Labour Government's 1974 Rent Act. Under section 12 of the 1974 Act a resident landlord can sublet part of his house without fear of being landed with someone he finds uncongenial. That aspect of the Act has been inadequately publicised. People can let parts of their homes without fear of someone living there with whom they are unable to get along. In that respect, shorthold is completely irrelevant. I do not think it is suggested that shorthold is needed to cater for lettings by resident landlords.

Mr. Shersby: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Act to which he refers have not been sufficiently widely publicised. It may be partly due to the fact, as well as for other reasons, that the belief exists—it is deep seated—that once one has a tenant in one's home, one cannot get that tenant out. No amount of persuasion by hon. Members or by anyone else will change people's view that that is the case. Every hon. Member has come into contact with constituents who hold that view. It is difficult to try to change their minds. I do not think that shorthold is irrelevant. I believe, on the contrary, that it is very relevant.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that control by the resident landlord over the tenant exists in theory, but that, in fact, to get that tenant out the resident landlord has to go to court? A dear old lady may have to live for three or four months with a most objectionable tenant.

Mr. Shersby: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is those reasons—the need to go to court and the entrenched belief that even if one goes to court one cannot get the tenant out—that make shorthold relevant. It introduces a new concept. It

enables people to address their minds to a new type of letting carrying completely different conditions from lettings that have been available in the past. In my judgment, people will be far. more willing to address their minds to the new situation despite the changes, to which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden referred, that occurred under the previous Act. It is not only the details of the legislation that we are attempting to put on the statute book that matter. It is the creation of an entirely new climate among owners of accommodation that we are trying to achieve.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said about the four old ladies. I have the greatest sympathy with some of the points that he expressed. There must be proper protection for tenants, particularly elderly tenants. I trust that this can be achieved in the Bill or through amendments to it. I appeal only for a chance to get the whole innovation off the ground. It would redound enormously to the credit of the House of Commons if we could introduce this new provision, putting aside hon. Members' hang ups about accommodation in the privately rented sector, or other reservations.
Some of those reservations are longstanding and attributable to political beliefs, upbringing or constituency pressure. We should try to rise above those reservations in order to create an opportunity to release the large amount of accommodation that I am certain exists not only in central London but in areas such as that which I represent. We should give young people a chance to have somewhere decent to live. Not to give them that chance will mean that we have failed miserably in our duty.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On the question of shorthold and how it applies to the private rented sector, I should like to deal with one or two myths, rather than hang-ups, as described by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
I should like first to deal with the myth that has been put forward regularly in Committee by Conservative Members in suggesting that tenants can freely enter into a shorthold agreement, and will do so, and that, therefore, because such an agreement is freely entered into by tenant and landlord, it is fair that at the


end of the period for which the agreement runs the landlord should be able to bring it to an end. That is a myth, because tenants will not be free to decide whether they enter into the shorthold agreement. They will be faced with a choice of accepting the landlord's conditions for the shorthold tenancy or of having nowhere to live—Hobson's choice. If they do not accept the conditions they will be homeless.
In Committee we have often tried to get accepted amendments that would safeguard the position of tenants who now have security of tenure and who move from one flat to another within the same dwelling house to try to make sure that the security remains and that they are not forced to be bargaining with the landlord about a shorthold tenancy, and the Government have refused such amendments.
We have tried to obtain safeguards for tenants when a shorthold tenancy comes to an end by amendments that would mean that the first offer of renewal, a new shorthold, was made to the sitting tenant. We have tried time and again to get the Government to make the position such that the tenant had some freedom of decision. Many charitable organisations, such as Shelter and the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless, have said clearly that, as the Bill is drafted, homelessness will increase as a result of the destruction of security, because landlords will be able to end a tenancy agreement at the end of the shorthold without the tenant having any choice.

Mr. Bendall: I cannot understand what destruction of security the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He certainly cannot be talking about destruction of security that exists for tenants now. He can be talking only about destruction of security on new shortholds, which is something that the Government are bringing in and which hitherto would not have existed, so I cannot see how it will create homelessness. It will help people.

Mr. Roberts: That is another myth. If the hon. Member had read the Committee proceedings and our amendments he would have been well aware that we have tried to safeguard the position of existing tenants—tenants protected under the Rent Acts. If the Government would

accept that shortholds should apply only to new lets—of which Conservative Members claim there will be plenty because there are plenty of properties which, they claim, will be brought into use—and should not apply to property that is now let to sitting tenants, there would not be the great divide between the Opposition and the Government.

Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall the statement made by the Under-Secretary, which gave away the whole game. In reply to a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), he said:
 The hon. Member for Ladywood starts oft under a misapprehension. He talked throughout of the tenant's option. There is no option."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 March 1980; c. 1136.]

Mr. Roberts: What Conservative Members must realise is that what is being brought into existence is a form of tenure that runs for a limited period, at the end of which the landlord has the right to bring the tenancy to an end and to seek eviction. The tenant has only 14 days in which to find alternative accommodation or to declare himself homeless. The justification for bringing in this kind of tenure is that it is said that there are many thousands of empty properties that landlords will not let because if they do so they might in future want to gain vacant possession but will not be able to do so, and that is a deterrent against landlords letting their property.
No justification has been put forward by the Government why, therefore, we should not restrict shortholds to new lets of properties that have not previously been let or are not now let. Until the Government can see that, they are not being rational or logical in their arguments.
7.45 pm
I should like to deal with another myth—empty property. Conservative Members seem to believe that there are hundreds of thousands of empty properties owned by private owners who are potential private landlords, in London and everywhere else, waiting for the introduction of the short-hold provisions before being let. If they really believe that, they will be sadly disappointed when this shorthold provision reaches the statute book. There is


empty property in the ownership of private individuals that is not being let. It is being kept empty for all sorts of purposes.
The idea that if one gets rid of the Rent Acts and tenants' security there will suddenly be thousands of properties available for letting in the private rented sector is a myth. If there is any truth in what the Government claim about this vast bank of private empty property, why have they not yet published the empty property survey that the Deparment of the Environment has caried out? When are we to see it? When will the Government make available the evidence that they claim exists?
The other thing with which I should like to deal is the myth put forward by Conservative Members that the private rented sector has declined because of wicked Labour Government Rent Acts which have provided too much security of tenure to tenants and have prevented landlords from charging economic rents and getting a fair return on their capital. That is what Tories argue.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that they are also preventing trade union pension funds from being used to buy houses for investment? Instead of doing that, they are being used to buy antiques. Explain that away. [Interruption.]

Mr. Roberts: I am being tempted to pass remarks that would cause me to be brought to order.
That is what Tory Members argue. They say that all that we need to do is to get rid of the wicked Rent Acts, which are unfair to landlords, allow landlords to charge higher and economic rents and to get a better return on their capital, and enable landlords more easily to get rid of tenants, especially bad tenants, and suddenly the provision of private rented accommodation will increase and the decline will stop. That is absolute nonsense.
In 1957 the then Conservative Government passed a similar piece of legislation destroying security. What occurred was a greater decline in the private rented sector, because when landlords can get rid of tenants, they do so in order to sell at vacant possession prices. When this Bill becomes an Act and when security

in the private rented sector is slowly eroded as a result of the shorthold provisions, we shall see a further decline in the private rented sector.

Mr. Bendall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why, after the 1957 Act, landlords decided to sell was that the then Opposition made absolutely clear that they would bring that Act to an end, as the Opposition are now suggesting again?

Mr. Roberts: We are indeed suggesting that, and the Government have been unwilling to protect tenants to the extent that we think is necessary for us not to make that kind of statement. Certainly one of the reasons why the 1957 Act resulted in a decline was that many landlords wanted vacant possession and wanted to make a profit on the property by selling it. The idea that the private rented sector has declined as a result of the Rent Acts is nonsense. The worst of the private rented sector, especially in inner city areas, has been bulldozed away and replaced, to a great extent, by public housing.

Mr. Bendall: It has been compulsorily acquired, often with sitting tenants, at low rents. Therefore, the councils have paid a low price.

Mr. Roberts: The interventions are proving the arguments that I am making more effectively than my remarks. I hope that they will continue.
The figures indicate that the private rented sector declined as a result of a housing policy that bulldozed away many of the unfit portfolios and estates of inadequate private rented accommodation. These were replaced in part by public sector housing. However, much of the old private sector rented housing that disappeared because of the development of progressive housing policies was replaced by owner-occupied housing.
The growth of owner-occupation has been dramatic and great. The reason why it has grown and replaced the private landlord lies in the financial advantages that successive Governments have provided to owner-occupiers by income tax relief on mortgages.
In 1951, 52 per cent, of accommodation was in the private rented sector. That amounted to 6·4 million units.


Owner-occupation represented 31 per cent.—namely, 3·9 million units. Public sector accommodation was 17 per cent., 2·2 million units. By 1976 the private rented sector had declined to only 15 per cent, of the units of accommodation, namely, 2·6 million.

Mr. John Major: The hon. Gentleman is about to embark on an explanation of the decline of the private rented sector. One of the objectives in the Government's mind in introducing shorthold is to arrest the decline and, if possible, to provide more accommodation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind as he continues.

Mr. Roberts: I am saying that Conservative Members' diagnosis of the decline of the private rented sector is fallacious. I shall complete the statistics that I was presenting. The private rented sector's share of accommodation had declined to 15 per cent. by 1976. The public sector share had increased to 30 per cent.—5·5 million units. The greatest increase, which I would have thought Conservative Members would welcome, was the replacement of the private rented sector by owner-occupation, which moved from 31 per cent. to 55 per cent.—from 3·9 million units in 1951 to 10 million in 1976.
A great deal of the additional owner-occupation was created by the best of the private rented sector accommodation being sold into owner-occupation. If the Conservative Party claims credit for the increase in owner-occupation from 1951 to 1976, it must welcome as a consequence of that the decline in the private rented sector. That sector would continue to decline if we abolished every piece of protection in every Labour Rent Act. The private rented sector will always be a dearer alternative to owner-occupation, council letting or housing association letting until it is subsidised.
No one in his right mind—perhaps some Conservative Members are exceptions—would seek the dearer alternative if he could gain access to the cheaper alternative. It is part of the Government's policy to restrict access to the other sectors—to make it impossible to get a council house by cutting council house building, to make council housing more

expensive by forcing councils to sell the best of their housing, and to make it difficult to gain access to owner-occupation by high interest rates and a mortgage famine.
It is only in that climate of scarcity that the private rented sector can flourish. Only in scarcity will anyone be silly enough to go to the private landlord to pay a higher price. It is part of the Government's package to attack the other sectors to try to prove that by introducing shorthold, which will destroy security of tenure, they will revitalise the private rented sector.

Mr. Stephen Ross: How is shorthold destroying existing security of tenure?

Mr. Roberts: I am pleased to explain a fundamental issue that we tried to explain to Conservative Members in Committee. We tried to do so throughout the Committee proceedings, but they were unable or unwilling to listen. If shortholds are restricted to properties that are not now let to private tenants—in other words, to new properties coming on to the market—we shall be creating a new tenure in an attempt to get properties into use that are not now let to tenants.
The Bill allows existing accommodation which is let by private landlords to tenants to be transferred into shorthold when certain situations arise. That will apply, for instance, when the tenant leaves and the landlord wants to relet the same property. He will relet it on short-hold. When a tenant moves from one flat to another in the same building he loses his security and the landlord can offer shorthold. We shall have what Labour spokesmen have described over the years as creeping decontrol.
When we hear the arguments of Conservative Members, we are given to understand that the tenants of private landlords never die and never hand in their rent books, and that accommodation now let by landlords to tenants with full security will not be let on shorthold when it becomes available for reletting. Of course it will be let on shorthold. Over four or five years a great inroad will be made into the present private rented sector.

Mr. Ross: Surely there is a converse to the argument. I live in a secure-tenant flat. Half of the block has been


sold off on long leaseholds. If I were to leave, the present landlords would not relet; they would sell the flat with a 99-or 125-year lease. Surely that is happening to an increasing extent. Surely it would be better if it could be retained for letting.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the lion. Member for proving my argument. He suggests that when property becomes vacant it is sold and not relet, or that if it is relet it will be on shorthold. No landlord would do anything other than relet on shorthold. To suggest that landlords do not relet accommodation to secure tenants under the Rent Acts when it becomes available is not true. They relet in those circumstances.

Mr. Major: Very rarely.

Mr. Roberts: There are many landlords who would relet.
I describe shorthold as creeping decontrol as outlined in the Bill. The Bill is part of the Government's total housing strategy. The Secretary of State for the Environment has described it as a social revolution. Indeed, it is. For the first time since 1945 the Government, unlike all previous Conservative Governments, are to hang their housing policy upon a dependence on provision by the private sector without local authority intervention or Government intervention for a major provision of housing to rent. That is contrary to what previous Conservative Governments have done.
The Government, as with all their other policies, including economic and industrial policies, are contracting out. The consequences will be horrendous for the homeless, for those in housing need, and for housing generally. The U-turn will be inevitable, just as it will be for the Government's industrial and economic policies.

8 pm

Mr. Heddle: I declare three interests. First, I am a shorthold tenant with a three-year lease. The property is let at a fair rent. I hope to renew the lease, because there is an excellent relationship between the landlord and his tenant. Secondly, I am a consultant surveyor and trustee of an estate that owns a few properties that might well take up the shorthold provisions. Thirdly, I am a very small shareholder in a public property

company. It is one of the most reputable property companies, and for many years it has owned a number of rent-controlled and regulated properties in East London. I refer to the Bradford Property Trust Ltd.
I seek to make the debate more relevant and to take it away from the foothills of dogma.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: From the mountains.

Mr. Heddle: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), I am not sure that we were in the mountains. The standard of debate and argument was so low that it remained in the foothills. Perhaps I can part the mists of irrelevance and restore some relevance.
There is no suggestion in the Bill that regulated tenancies will be converted to shorthold tenancies. As drafted, that could not occur. The Government have gone a long way towards meeting the Opposition's negative and sterile attitude. That will be demonstrated when we consider amendment No. 117.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Heddle: I should like to get into the main thrust of my argument before giving way to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). He made a valuable contribution to the debate. He concentrated on the problems of London. As he is known to be an assiduous Member of Parliament for an outer London constituency, he is entitled to do that. The House should not consider only those problems that affect inner London. Inner London faces a particular problem of supply and demand. The House should consider the wider problems of homelessness and of ever-lengthening housing queues.
I have regard for the views of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and also for those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and his friends. However, the argument should not be concentrated on London. London may deserve a separate Bill and perhaps the Greater London Bill will incorporate enabling powers.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has said that no one will lose security


of tenure. I do not wish to lecture landlords on how to use the Bill to winkle out their tenants, but a great many ideas have occurred to me as a result of my experience as a solicitor. I have experience not only of London but of many other parts of the country. Will an application for possession on the ground of the provision of alternative accommodation under Schedule 15 be satisfied by the provision of alternative accommodation that is let on a shorthold tenancy? My interpretation of part IV, paragraph 4 of the schedule, is that it would. Perhaps neither the Minister nor the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give an immediate answer. However, the Minister may receive advice before he replies. Many hon. Members would welcome his assurance.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, the landlord would have to serve a schedule of conditions relating to the new tenancy. As a practising solicitor, the hon. Gentleman will know that winkling is illegal. Furthermore, no existing regulated tenancy will be converted to a shorthold tenancy. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that categorically.
It is a long time since we heard the constructive words of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I shall re-emphasise what he said by quoting from the editorial of The Times of two days ago. It reads:
 It is clear that there are hundreds of thousands of dwellings which are kept empty, or sold for owner-occupation once vacant, because the owner finds no incentive to let under present law. Equally clearly, there are many people seeking homes—students, transient workers, young families not yet ready to settle down permanently—whose needs are not efficiently met either by the private market or by council housing, cumbersome as it is in its allocation procedures. That much can be accepted by all but the most hidebound opponents of private renting … Both sides … look charitably on the efforts of their opponents to do the same.
I regret that the Opposition cannot look charitably on the bold and brave initiatives that the Government have taken in order to bring a breath of fresh air into the housing market. Over a period, the Government anticipate that the housing crisis will be eliminated. In January the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)

gave an interview to the Local Government Chronicle. He categorically stated that if and when the Labour Party returned to power it would—without any hesitation or doubt—repeal the shorthold provisions. The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret that undertaking. In four years, barely the period of one short-hold, many of the electorate will suggest that if they cast their votes in favour of the Labour Party they may become homeless overnight—I regret that Opposition Members are laughing. Homelessness is no laughing matter.

Mr. Major: Although the Opposition find it amusing, homelessness is no laughing matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to speculate as to why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) suggested in Committee that he would prefer to see properties empty than to see them let under shorthold provisions.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) for that intervention. His words speak for themselves.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forbear from commenting on what I said. However, knowing his penchant for voicing opinions of great interest, I doubt whether he will. If he forbears, I shall undertake to comment on what I said later, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Heddle: When I introduced to the Committee the quotation from the Local Government Chronicle of 15 January, the right hon. Member for Ardwick and his hon. Friends knew nothing about the commitment that their colleague had given.

Mr. Shersby: Did my hon. Friend hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) say earlier that the Labour Party had not closed its mind to reaching agreement on the question of shorthold? He indicated that the Labour Party was still prepared—if further proceedings allow—to reach agreement. Perhaps my hon. Friend will inquire of the right hon. Gentleman whether the Labour Party has changed its view—I hope that it has—since the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke on the


radio. His reaction might have been off the cuff.

Mr. Heddle: I would gladly put that question to the right hon. Member for Ardwick if I thought that it would elicit an honest response. I shall leave it to him to decide whether he will dwell on that point.
Earlier this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to another clause. We heard two different answers to the point relating to the option to the right to buy. We heard the answer of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), the chairman of the national executive committee of the Labour Party. We also heard the deafening silence from the right hon. Member for Ardwick, which clearly indicated his dissent.
I find the Opposition's lack of appreciation of a bipartisan approach to this debate sad, negative and depressing. I find it sad because shortholds will provide the key to unlocking our wooden and static society.
Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said that every Friday and Saturday in his advice bureau he hears from his constituents, particularly young people, who wish to rent a house, a flat or a bungalow. They do not mind whether it is a council house, flat or bungalow. All they want is the right to rent something somewhere. I believe that the Opposition's opposition to shorthold provisions generally is sad, because it means that some landlords will still prefer to sell their property when they obtain vacant possession on the expiry of the present tenancy, and thus that property and that landlord will be lost to the private rented sector for ever.
It is sad that Labour opposition to these provisions is negative. The Opposition have not—on Second Reading, or in the 140 hours of debate in Committee, or on Report—come forward with any constructive suggestions as to how those poor people doomed to remain on an ever lengthening council housing waiting list will ever enjoy the right to rent.
I find the Opposition's atittude to private landlords depressing. Many such landlords are highly reputable private property companies, such as the Bradford Property Trust. Some are charities and some are private trusts. Others are

individuals whose life savings have been sunk in providing homes for others. The Opposition seem to find these landlords the subject of disdain and dogmatic dislike.
Despite, or possibly because of, successive Rent Acts and Housing Acts enacted by successive Governments of both political persuasions, the private rented sector has declined. Unless short-hold provisions are given a chance to succeed, it will continue to decline. It is only right to remind the House that in each year of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 the private rented sector diminished by 125,000 homes a year. It will continue to diminish unless the Opposition tonight give the shorthold provisions a chance to succeed.
It is despite, or possibly because of, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 that homelessness has increased since that year. In 1977 there were 34,000 homeless households in the country. In 1978 there were 52,000, and in 1979, based on the half-yearly figure of 28,000, there were 56,000. It is just these poor people who have increased the numbers of homelessness since the passing of that Act who would benefit from the shorthold provisions which can give them the promise of a right to rent. It is just these people of whom the Opposition spoke, when in Government, in drafting their Green Paper of June 1977, whom the shorthold provisions would assist.
I quote from chapter 8.05 of the Green Paper:
—Elderly people, often now with low incomes, who are regulated or controlled tenants of unfurnished accommodation. They may have lived in their present houses for many years. Similar people in younger age groups would normally become public sector tenants or home owners. When these tenants leave, the houses are often not re-let but sold for home ownership, bought by local authorities or demolished.—Older single people and couples without children who cannot afford home ownership. If not accepted for public sector tenancies they will need to rent privately on a long term basis.
It is these people for whom the short-hold provisions will exist.
—Newly married couples, or young single people setting up home for the first time. Most of these will be private tenants for a short time only.


it is just these people for whom the shorthold provisions will exist.
—People who move from one place to another … This group includes immigrants from overseas.
It is just these people for whom the shorthold provisions will exist.
—Members of families who split up as a result of domestic difficulties often need quick access to furnished rented accommodation, which may only be available in the private sector.
It is for these people that the short-hold provisions will exist.
8.15 pm
I remind the Opposition that that same housing policy document said that the needs of many of those people I have mentioned would only be satisfied by renting, and under present arrangements most would not have a very high priority on the public sector waiting list. It is just for these people that the shorthold provisions will exist.
The policy document goes on to say:
 If the decline continued unabated and no action were taken to compensate for the loss of accommodation from the sector, many people—particularly new or mobile households—might not be able to find the housing they need. It might be argued—though the evidence is tenuous—that this is already beginning to happen in a number of areas. To guard against this, we need to consider what action can be taken to stimulate the supply of let-tings within the private sector.
It is just for these people and their aspirations that the shorthold provisions will exist.

Amendment No. 55 is irrelevant and illogical. There is no need for the local authority to maintain a register of short-hold tenancies because any hon. Member who has read the Bill thoroughly knows that a shorthold tenant has his rent registered with the rent officer, and the rent officer himself will have a register of shorthold tenancies.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) spoke as a fervent supporter of the shorthold tenancy. It was interesting to note that he had no reservations at all. However, there are some Conservative Members who have reservations, and we have not heard them today. I understand that their reservations were expressed in Committee and in the newspapers and I would have thought that their viewpoint should

be reflected on the Floor of the House at Report stage.
I wish to take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who made a strong appeal for a bipartisan approach. He said, in effect, that shorthold tenancies were not likely to work if the Labour Party was committed to its present policy. However, there can be no consensus on this issue as long as there is such insecurity connected with shorthold tenancies.
When Conservatives talk about helping the homeless and finding accommodation for people in need, they do not understand that such people require security. The majority of people seeking accommodation do not want a shorthold tenancy without knowing what will happen to them at the end of the year. Most of these agreements will be for 12 months only. People with families do not want the constant worry and insecurity of wondering what will happen at the end of 12 months. This is why there is such a difference between the two sides.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members, but they should not doubt our sincerity. To say that we laugh at the homeless, when our views are that no one should be homeless in this country, is stupid to say the least. We want to provide decent, adequate and secure accommodation for people. That is why last night we gave our views about the need for far more council dwellings. Therefore, the possibility of reaching agreement between the two sides is minimal.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that it was not too late. But it is. If the Government were willing to make the sort of concession that we are seeking, they should have done so rather earlier than on Report—and they are not doing so now.

Mr. Shersby: I believe that it is never too late to fall in love or to find a way to reach agreement on legislation. I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely sincere. I respect his concern about the need for a sense of security for people in rented accommodation. However, many people, such as university students, do not need long periods of security. Equally, many others would be happy to enjoy accommodation for one, two, three or four years, during


which time they would have the opportunity to save to purchase a home in the private sector.

Mr. Winnick: In the main, the period of the agreement would be 12 months and not longer, at least initially. The House is concerned with many groups and not only students.
Once again a Tory Government are undermining security for tenants.

Mr. Major: That is not so.

Mr. Winnick: They are undermining provisions that have been made over the past few years to provide accommodation and security. Many of the arguments that are produced now were used to justify the 1957 Rent Act. We were told that that Act would release a great deal of accommodation and do much good. After all the scandal associated with that Act, such as Rachmanism, the Tory Opposition in the 1964 Parliament did not have sufficient confidence in the Act to vote against the Labour Government when they repealed it. That Act was much discredited during its operation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, the 1957 Rent Act did not release more accommodation for renting. When accommodation became empty, it was quickly sold off. More rented properties were sold off during the operation of that Act than in later periods. We cannot ignore that.
There is a danger to existing regulated tenancies. Although certain measures may be illegal, that will not worry unscrupulous landlords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) pointed out, those tenants who have protection and security may be induced to move to another house or other rooms, and they will not have the same protection. They may find themselves in difficulty.

Mr. Bendall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same thing can happen at present? Controlled tenants in properties that were not decontrolled under the 1957 Act can be moved into regulated tenancies. That legislation was laid down by the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Winnick: That could happen, although controlled tenancies will be abolished under the Bill. However, if

a tenant moves from a controlled to a regulated tenancy, he will retain security of tenure. That is important. Under regulated tenancies, security of tenure exists.
New clause 58, which I do not believe the Government are keen on, would at least give some protection. If the Government want our support—and I do not suggest that that will come easily—they should be willing to look sympathetically at our amendments and new clauses. However, they wish the Bill to remain in almost its original state, and they can hardly expect our support.
When the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) first put forward the idea of shorthold tenancies, I believe that he suggested that the existing tenant should be given first refusal. There is no such provision in the Bill, although there are amendments to that effect. Surely that is the way to persuade us that our fears are not justified. However, the Government offer nothing to strengthen the position of shorthold tenants.

Mr. Major: Why should we set the Opposition's fears at rest, in view of the precise and detailed statement made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Arclwick (Mr. Kaufman) in Standing Committee F on 18 March, with which, doubtless, the hon. Gentleman is familiar?

Mr. Winnick: Clearly, my right hon. Friend anticipated the Government's refusal to budge.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was made after the Government refused every amendment tabled by us in Committee. At the beginning of the Committee debate on shorthold tenancies my right hon. Friend made it clear that we expected concessions and would make up our minds in the light of the Government's attitude. At the end of those proceedings they had not conceded one iota of change.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that I am reluctant to support new tenancies that do not give a tenant security and protection. I made my position clear on Second Reading.
Rent is important. While agreement can be made for the first period, which will probably be 12 months, from then on there is no effective control over the rent that a shorthold tenant would pay. When accommodation is scarce, there is no equality between tenant and landlord.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The rent fixed under a short-hold agreement is the normal fair registered rent, and the same statutory provisions apply for continuance as for other regulated rents.

Mr. Winnick: I understand that the Secretary of State will take such powers.

Mr. Stanley: No.

Mr. Winnick: What I am saying is that where accommodation is scarce, as is the case now, there is no equality between tenant and landlord. Because the tenant realises the danger of not having the agreement renewed, he could be willing to pay a higher rent, whatever the provisions in the Act.

Mr. Heddle: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government's Rent Act, which devised the fair rent regulated system and set up the fair rent procedure, gave the rent officer stricter terms of reference, which drew attention to the scarcity factor. Therefore, when a rent is negotiated by a rent officer, between the landlord and the tenant, the scarcity factor is taken fully into account.

Mr. Winnick: But the important difference is that a regulated tenant has security and knows that, regardless of the pressures put on him by a landlord, he cannot be forced out. Shorthold tenants will have no such security. We shall deceive ourselves if we believe that there will not be pressure on shorthold tenants to agree to unacceptable rents.
We believe that the shorthold provisions are unacceptable. Much has been made of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has given a pledge to repeal shorthold tenancies. That view is held by all those who are active in the Labour Party and the Labour movement. We should have been disappointed if my right hon. Friend had not made such a pledge.
We believe, as a fundamental point of principle, that there must be protection and security for the tenant. We see no reason for apologising for the fact that we find nothing acceptable in shorthold tenancies.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents who cannot get a home, but who see homes being left empty because they may be needed in future for an agricultural worker, and homes being let to Americans rather than to British people because there are no shorthold tenancies, how that position improves the equality between the landlord and the tenant? How can he say that to homeless people and believe it?

Mr. Winnick: Such words are hypocritical in the mouth of a supporter of a Government who seem determined to stop council house building and to make it more difficult for people to buy their own homes, because of property price inflation and the 15 per cent. mortgage interest rate.

Mr. Bendall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: No, I have given way several times.

Mr. Major: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: Other hon. Members wish to speak, and I do not think that I should give way again. We know who is responsible for guillotining discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Conservative Members are so eager to represent the landlords. They are the landlords' friends.

Mr. Winnick: As matters stand, the Bill is a charter for rogues and racketeers in the property business. If Rachman were alive he would be encouraged by what is being put forward by the Government. When the Bill becomes an Act, our words will be proved right, just as they were after the 1957 Act. When abuses come to light we shall remind the Conservative Members of our warnings and why we believe that it is necessary to introduce the safeguards proposed in the amendments.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I feel rather nervous about taking part in the debate because I did not have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading and my application to the Committee of Selection to be included on the Standing Committee fell on deaf ears. So many hon. Members on both sides have studied the shorthold idea in such depth lately that I have to approach the subject as an outsider.
It will be best if I confine my remarks to what I know from facts and observation in my constituency. When I set out in 1973 on my campaign to introduce a new form of tenure it seemed that there was a need for such a new form of tenure but that it should not be regarded as a cure-all for the housing problem.
Many people, certainly in Kensington and, I believe, to a greater or lesser degree all over the country, do not want absolute, lifelong security of tenure, but want to know where they stand for a year, or two or three years, in decent property where they are paying a reasonable rent and can afford to decorate, lay carpets or make curtains without feeling that the money will be wasted because they will not be in the property long enough to justify making it a decent place for themselves.
We have seen the demand for holiday lettings, many of which are, I am sure, using a loophole to create shorthold tenancies because the law does not provide the necessary facilities. We owe it to tenants who need short-term accommodation, as much as we owe it to people who have accommodation that they wish to let, to provide a reasonable framework of law in which property can be let without exploitation or abuse. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of hon. Members on both sides of the House to get this legislation right, and we must be close to it now.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) pointed out, owner-occupiers can let under the 1974 Act, and can regain possession relatively easily under that Act. But they cannot convert part of their property and make a self-contained dwelling, and then let it and relet it on fixed terms. That was a lacuna in the 1974 Act, and he, as

an honest man, will I am sure agree. It should be corrected.
What is happening now to secure properties which become vacant? I am not sure of the number of such properties, what proportion are sold and what proportion are relet, but I am sure that the majority are sold, and that is probably something that cannot be changed in the short term. My guess is that those properties that are relet are not marketable because they are either so squalid as to be very disagreeable properties, or highly specialised or luxurious, and nothing that we do about shorthold will alter their position.
There is still much empty property in Kensington, certainly in inner London, and I believe throughout the country, which could be let if we provided a proper vehicle. But we are looking only at properties which are now vacant and which could be let as they stand, which could be let after some expense, or which could be let after great expense.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not wish to prevent the hon. Gentleman from developing his argument, but when he says that we are looking only at property which is now vacant, is he saying that shorthold should apply only to properties that are now vacant rather than to conversions or properties with regulated tenancies? Does he seek to use the shorthold provision as a means of bringing empty properties on to the market?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: From the start, my object was to bring empty property on to the market, and that is still the primary aim of the Government. Labour Members have tortured themselves with the idea that property that would now be relet if there was not a change in the law would be let unsuitably to families who are longing for life-long security simply because they are desperate for somewhere to live. I do not see that danger, and if there is any such danger it will not be difficult to avoid.
I looked up some of my original notes of 1973 on shorthold. My main objective then—it still is my main objective—was to get landlords to let. I recognise that it is equally important to foresee and prevent abuse in the stress areas. But there are many areas where there is now no housing stress, and the tenants there


will be well able to look after themselves if they are offered properties which they do not like, or for which the rents are unreasonable. In Kensington and in other areas in our great cities there is still a shortage of accommodation, and we need to find a way to protect tenants from exploitation or abuse.
Let us consider the snags. Labour Members are concerned about what happens at the end of the fixed period. But in our debate on these amendments we are not dealing with Government amendment No. 117, which will be discussed next. Labour Members are being ungenerous in criticising the Government for not moving in their direction when amendment No. 117 provides the concession which they requested in Committee. I do not foresee a tremendous amount of misery developing at the end of the fixed period, particularly if we arrive at the position in which, if people do not get the chance of renewing the tenure of the shorthold they are in, they can easily move to one of the many others being advertised at the time when their lease comes to an end.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) would have suggested that the rent control element should be removed. I do not agree with that in respect of the part of London that I represent, because I am sure that it would be opening the door far too quickly to decontrol, and I would not support that. But I am prepared to believe that there are parts of the country where it is not necessary to apply control. That is something that we could learn about in due course. If the Secretary of State has discretion under the Bill to deal with different regions by separate orders, it might be possible to allow decontrol of rents in shortholds where there is no tendency upwards in the level of rents. Experience would show.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I have listened with great sympathy and interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said. When the sort of squalid property that he has described in North Kensington, which he and I have both represented, becomes vacant, what does he think will happen to it? I suggest that, first, it will be let on shorthold. Does he seriously imagine that after the 12-month period has come to an end the landlord will refrain from

collecting from his tenants a rent well above the registered rent? Does he not recall what happened in that very area before the Rent Act 1974 came into operation? The rent regulation for furnished tenants was a complete dead letter. There was absolutely no security for any furnished tenant. Such tenants did not dare go to the rent tribunal.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman's experience of Kensington is very extensive. He remembers a very bad time. But I do not see why there should be special pressure on the tenant of a shorthold in regard to the matter of renewal, any more than at the moment there is pressure on ignorant or foreign people who do not understand our law under the existing very complex housing legislation. I am not convinced that there is this danger, which is being used as something of a scare. If there were to be breaches in the law and abuse in one or two areas, the existing provisions of other laws would enable the Government to overtake them.
One of the features of the Bill that I introduced each year was that the accommodation to be let on shorthold should be of a relatively high quality such as would qualify for a discretionary improvement grant. Therefore, I did not envisage it being possible to let really squalid or rotten properties on shorthold, because they would not come up to the necessary standard, and the rent officer would not let them through. My Bill would have allowed only a rather limited beginning to the idea.
If we include no stipulation as to the quality of the premises, the properties let on shorthold will not be any worse than they are now. Shorthold will not lead to the property deteriorating. If the property on one day is disagreeable and the following day it is let on shorthold, it will not make it any worse. I wonder whether hon. Members are suggesting that because it is let on shorthold it will deteriorate. I cannot follow that argument. I do not see any reason why that should happen.
There is a strong case, however, for a particular kind of discretionary improvement grant aimed at the type of property which would be let in small units. This might apply just in local authority areas where there is a strong


demand for bachelor accommodation, or for very small units of accommodation for students and others who are looking for the type of thing that we think would be suitable for a shorthold letting. A grant is really a loan, because it comes back to the local authority in rates over a period, and it would be money very well spent if it were to rescue properties which are deteriorating, and which sooner or later will go out of use for accommodation altogether.
With regard to the balance of supply and demand, the only way in which we shall get a really satisfactory relationship between landlord and tenant is when the tenant can afford to move out easily because there are other properties of the same sort available and vacant to move into.
I remember inner London as it was before the war, when there was not a single street without a sign saying "Flat to let ". We could work our way back to that position quite quickly if we made the necessary changes in the law, because of the thousands of unlet properties which ought to be brought back on to the market. We must try to encourage the landlords to let. This is an appeal which I want particularly to aim at Labour Members. If they are as familiar as I am with the problems of young people looking for accommodation and unable to understand why they cannot get property offered to them which they know is vacant in their own neighbourhood, the Opposition will not do anything to sabotage the shorthold concept.
8.45 pm
I can well understand that the Opposition may feel that the form in which the Government are presenting shorthold is not ideal or that it does not meet their particular conceptions or constituency circumstances. But just as the 1974 Act was a good measure that contained certain provisions which subsequent experience has shown needed to be changed, so this Bill is likely to show, in time, that there are provisions in it that will, in the light of experience, need to be changed.
I am not trying to take from Opposition Members the right to criticise or amend, but I implore them to say now that they will accept the shorthold idea in principle and that they will change

it only if experience shows that certain changes are needed. I ask them not to damage the concept so that landlords are afraid to let. We do not want landlords to feel that there is a political risk in letting to a tenant on a new form of tenure. There will be nervousness anyway about a new form of tenure, but if the Labour Party makes shorthold impossible because it intends to enfranchise tenants retrospectively or change the nature of the law so as to damage landlords who have entered into these leases, it will deprive people of decent accommodation which should be offered to them and which could so easily be offered to them.
When the Opposition spokesman deals with this issue, I hope that he will say plainly what the Labour Party would wish to change and will say categorically that there is no question of the Labour Party retrospectively altering the law on shorthold so as to catch landlords who have let. Let the Opposition by all means change the law on future letting following a change of Government in due course but I urge them, at this point, not to damn the whole idea and keep people out of homes which they desperately wish to move into.

Mr. Stanley: All my hon. Friends will have appreciated what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), to whom the credit for this part of the Bill is really due. If it had not been for the enterprise and creative skill shown by my hon. Friend when we were in opposition and his tenacity in introducing a Private Member's Bill year after year, we might not have these important provisions in the Bill.
I also think that the whole House will have noted what my hon. Friend said. Those of us who have been in Standing Committee F for three months or more have listened to many hours of debate on the shorthold proposals. The Opposition view was that had my hon. Friend been on that Committee and heard our shorthold proposals he would have rejected them root and branch. The speech that my hon. Friend has just made demonstrates that that is by no means his position.
My hon. Friend has, quite rightly, indicated that our provisions are in


accordance with his own concept of shorthold. He has also said that it is now incumbent upon the Opposition—our having introduced those safeguards, which I shall speak of shortly—not to wreck shorthold but to give it a fair wind. We are grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear.
Throughout the passage of this Bill we have recognised that if we could achieve a bipartisan approach to the issue of shorthold it would be in the national housing interest. For that reason I wholly endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). We have certainly tried to do all that we can to further that objective by trying to reach an accommodation that is consistent with creating a statutory framework in which shorthold can get off the ground.
Unhappily, in Committee it became apparent that though the Opposition talked about safeguards in almost every other breath they were less concerned with safeguards than with trying to prevent shorthold getting off the ground at all. The Opposition amendments have been characterised by an attempt to create a succession of obstacles to those who wish to make accommodation available for shorthold purposes. The Opposition attitude has also been characterised by an important new amendment, which was not part of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. It has been characterised by moves that try to restrict the numbers of dwellings that might be made available for shorthold purposes.
The Opposition suggest that we introduced shorthold on the basis that it is shorn of safeguards. That is nonsense. Some people outside the House and perhaps some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), feel that the safeguards are such that they will have a considerable effect on the number of dwellings available for shorthold purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was right to ask me to set out clearly the safeguards in the Bill as it stands and in an amendment that we hope to have time to discuss.
The safeguards cover the salient features that affect shorthold tenants. First, we have made it a legal impossibility to convert

an existing regulated tenancy to a shorthold. That safeguard was not in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, and I know that he welcomes the additional safeguards.
Secondly, we have introduced compulsory rent registration for shortholds. That has never appeared in any Labour Rent Act. It is a new safeguard for tenants.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister therefore move an amendment to case 19 to prevent a court granting an order for possession if the landlord has been collecting more than the registered rent? As with furnished tenancies, landlords often collect rents that are way in excess of the registered rent because the tenant does not dare to take action. There is nothing to prevent a landlord from gaining possession when he has collected two or three times the registered rent.

Mr. Stanley: If a landlord fails to comply with the obligation to register a rent within 28 days he incurs the serious penalty of finding that the tenant is a fully protected Rent Act tenant with two successions. Nothing could be a stronger deterrent than that. The hon. Gentleman refers to a landlord who registers a rent and in a backhand way collects additional funds. One of the other important safeguards in the Bill is that the shorthold tenant is a protected tenant in the same way as a tenant under the 1977 Rent Act. Exactly the same protection is accorded to the shorthold tenant in such circumstances as to any other Rent Act tenant when a rent is registered and the landlord tries to abuse the amount of rent secured.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I accept that such a tenant will be able to recover up to one year's rent, but he will not have security of tenure. At the end of 12 months of letting under a shorthold the landlord can say to the tenant "I shall let you stay on, but I want twice or three times the rent." If the tenant agrees and pays the landlord much more rent, the tenant will be a shorthold tenant thereafter, with no security of tenure and paying an unregistered rent. Can the Minister assure the House that that is not correct, because that is what the Bill appears to provide?

Mr. Stanley: The Rent Act 1977 will apply equally to shorthold tenants. If


a shorthold tenant continues in a short-hold letting by agreement or because no decision is made by the landlord to obtain vacant possession, the same provisions will apply. However, I shall examine the matter. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and make my reply available to the House.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: My understanding of the provisions in the Rent Act 1977 is that a shorthold tenancy is regarded as a suitable alternative tenancy. That will enable a large number of landlords to get their tenants out of regulated tenancies and into shorthold tenancies. I should welcome an assurance on that.

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to deal with that point also. We have introduced compulsory rent registration, which has not been a feature of any previous Rent Act legislation. That is an important point of perspective in respect of that safeguard. During the currency of a shorthold, tenants will have the same statutory protection as other Rent Act protected tenants. That relates to the points raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). It confers greater safeguards on the question of over-payment than those contained in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.
We are about to introduce another important safeguard, in the shape of amendment No. 117, which will provide a further minimum period of one year's security if a landlord does not exercise his right of repossession at the end of the first shorthold term.

Mr. Tony Durant: I thank my hon. Friend for tabling that amendment, for which my hon. Friends and I have pressed. Will he lay out the three alternatives that face a tenant at the end of the shorthold, so that the position is made absolutely clear? There has been rumour and counter-rumour, and anxiety has been expressed outside the House.

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to do so, but briefly, because I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) wishes to reply.
The position at the end of a shorthold is that either the landlord exercises his rieht to gain possession under case 19—

the new shorthold mandatory repossession case under the Rent Act—or does nothing. In that case, amendment No. 117 will ensure that the tenant has full Rent Act security for a further year, and the landlord will not be able to apply to the court under case 19 to regain possession until one year after the expiry of the shorthold term. Alternatively, the landlord may have given the tenant a new agreement. In those circumstances the landlord would not be able to use case 19 to regain possession until a year after the end of the original shorthold term, or, if the agreement is for a period longer than one year, until the end of that period. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
I turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). He referred to the registration of rent at the outset of a shorthold. That question was raised in Committee, when I said that I would consider the matter. It has proved difficult to devise a way to achieve the automatic registration of a fair rent at the outset of a shorthold without making shorthold excessively complicated. That is clearly not in the interests of either landlords or tenants. We have not yet been able to devise a satisfactory amendment. I am still considering that problem, and I hope to introduce an amendment in another place.
The Opposition have clearly found equal difficulty, and their amendment does not solve the problem either. It does not achieve the results that they intended, namely, to ensure that no more than the fair rent is paid at the outset of shorthold. There is no requirement in section 69 of the Rent Act 1977 that a landlord who has been issued with a certificate of fair rent is restricted to that fair rent when and if he lets the property. Obviously, both sides of the House are in some difficulty on that matter. I shall continue to study the problem and introduce an amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Times leader is misleading on that point. It says that the Government have abandoned the idea of fair rents. That is wrong.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There are one or two aspects of The Times leader that are wrong, and that is one of them. The fair rent system applies


for initial lettings where no rent has been registered—if a rent has been registered only that rent can be applied—and where, under the Bill, the landlord has to apply within 28 days. We are concerned about the gap between the application and the registration of the rent.
9 pm
I turn now to the other Opposition amendments. The Opposition have asked for a register of all shortholds. As the amendment is drafted, no one will be able to let on shorthold until the property is on a register. It would mean that local authorities would have to compile registers of shortholds; it would presumably involve inspecting all the properties that might become available for shorthold; and it would certainly take months, possibly years, before that happened. I think that that would be a serious impediment to getting the shorthold scheme under way.
As for standards, the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), which he did not move, relates to what was in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. It is suggested that there should be a special standard for shorthold properties before they can become available. If the standard for shorthold dwellings in accordance with the amendments were applied, 300,000 publicly rented dwellings would not be available for renting and 600,000 privately rented dwellings would fall outside the standard. It does not seem sensible when people want short-term accommodation, to apply a standard that does not apply to long-term rented accommodation in either the public or the private sector.
Finally, I come to amendment No. 58, to which the Opposition attach the greatest significance. That is the amendment that says that no dwelling shall be made available for shorthold if it was a regulated tenancy at the coming into operation of the Bill.
We have heard a great deal about the safeguards proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. This safeguard at no time features in the Bills that he brought forward. This so-called safeguard

is proposed by the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). Let us make no mistake about it: this is the Labour Opposition's requirement for shorthold. The effect, as the House will be aware, would be to take out of potential availability for shorthold a large number of dwellings—the total number of dwellings with regulated tenancies at the commencement of this measure. We see no case for that. At the moment, if a dwelling is regulated there is no way in which it can be converted into a shorthold, for the reasons that I have explained. It is a legal impossibility.
The effect of what the Opposition are asking for by incorporating the amendment will be that if a regulated tenancy becomes vacant, rather than helping the interests of those who want rented accommodation, we shall make them worse. We shall be denying the owner of that property the ability to let it on a short-term basis. He will have a direct incentive—an even greater incentive than he has now—to sell that property. The effect of the amendment would be to diminish the available rented stock even more rapidly than it is going now. If ever there were clear evidence that the motivation of the Opposition is to reduce the available numbers of shortholds to the smallest possible, it lies in amendment No. 58.
It is a great sadness that, in terms of housing policy nationally, we have not so far been able to establish a bipartisan approach to shortholds. The Government have bent over backwards to include all reasonable safeguards on the short-hold scheme. In amendment No. 117 we have brought forward a further safeguard. We have now moved our position still further. I think that it now lies firmly with the Opposition to move their position and to make clear whether they are out to wreck shorthold or are genuinely prepared to see whether we can get a new source of short-term accommodation in the private sector for those who desperately need it.

Mr. Kaufman: On Second Reading the Opposition deliberately made no statement about their attitude to short-hold, other than a holding statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatters-ley), in which he said:
 If the Minister wants the co-operation of both sides of the House, and if he wants shortholds to be given a fair wind, as he describes it, the safeguards which have previously been included in shorthold Bills must be included in this Bill, and certainly his power to de-register shorthold tenancies must be removed. If he feels unable to do that, short-hold landlords should not enter into agreements in the belief that a future Labour Government would continue with this policy."—[Official Report, 15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1475.]
Those were my right hon. Friend's remarks at the outset of Parliament's consideration of the Bill, and when the Standing Committee began consideration of the shorthold provisions on 11 March I repeated clearly the attitude of the Opposition. I said:
 Our position at the end of clause 54 will depend on the Government's reaction to our amendments. I make that clear."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 March 1980; c. 974.]
In Committee, we debated shorthold for 11 hours, over five sittings. The official Opposition moved a series of amendments to provide what we regarded as the minimum safeguards for shorthold tenants. Many of those amendments were word-for-word passages from Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). Every one of those amendments was defeated by Government Members in the Committee. All the safeguards that we sought to insert, many of them word-for-word safeguards endorsed by the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) when they put their support to those policies, were obediently voted down by Conservative Members.
The shorthold tenancy emerged from those 11 hours of debate in Committee as a serious menace to private tenants. We hoped, even so, that the Government would bring in safeguard amendments to improve the position of shorthold tenants. We made it clear that if that were possible we might be in a position to reassess the attitude that I had stated on behalf of the Opposition. I have to say that the Government have hardly moved at all. They moved one amendment in Committee, which prevented the worst kind of winkling, though, as I shall demonstrate, other forms of winkling remain possible. They have put down one amendment on Report to safeguard the

shorthold tenant in only one situation of vulnerability. All the other situations of vulnerability, to which I shall refer shortly, remain. The position, therefore, is almost as bad as ever.
That is the opinion not only of the official Opposition. Westminster city council, controlled by the Conservative Party and administering an area with particular problems related to private tenancy, held a special meeting on Monday last week and passed an emergency resolution dealing with shorthold. The resolution stated the council's misgivings about shorthold as it emerged from the Standing Committee. The council's principal objection—I shall come to this again—was that only empty properties should be eligible after a certain date—for example, the operative date of the Act—for the granting of shorthold tenancies. That was stated in a resolution moved at a special emergency meeting of the Conservative-controlled Westminster city council, which faces precisely the problems which the hon. Member for Kensington discussed when he advocated short-hold tenancy, and he repeated that advocacy in his remarks today.
The shorthold concept as it exists in the Bill is not the concept that was to be found in the Bills introduced by the hon. Gentleman. It now falls into place as part of the Government's attack on private tenants. Shorthold tenancies, as they emerge from this Bill, will be nasty, brutish and short.
There will be no genuine security for the shorthold tenant. After one year of tenancy it will be possible for the landlord to remove the shorthold tenant at three months's notice. After one year's tenancy the shorthold tenant will have three months' tenancy if that is what the landlord decides he should have.
The tenant will have theoretical rent rights under the Rent Acts. The Minister made much of the tenant having what he described as Rent Act protection, but that protection will only be theoretical, because when the shorthold tenant comes to the end of his tenancy and moves on to what we describe as the shorthold successor tenancy, he will have the choice of agreeing—although that word is peculiar in the circumstances—with his landlord on the rent that the landlord seeks to impose upon him, or agreeing


to being evicted. That is why the Under-Secretary was perfectly right when he said that the shorthold tenant would have no option.

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. Would he care to acknowledge that it would be illegal for a landlord to seek to raise the rent above the registered rent level?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows very well, however, that the requirement for a registered rent can be removed by the Secretary of State by an order, without reference to this House. Therefore, the protection of registration will not exist for the tenant for any longer than the Secretary of State wishes it to survive. Following that, instead of the compulsion for registration, there will be only the right to registration. Any tenant faced with eviction after three months will not avail himself of that right to registration. Everyone knows that.

Mr. Bendall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I have only a little time, and I have an important statement to make on behalf of the Opposition.
As I have pointed out, the situation is that compulsory registration of rents, about which the Minister boasted in his speech, can be removed by the Secretary of State at his will by an order which the House does not have to approve.
Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Kensington, have asked what the Opposition's requirements are for reassessing our attitude to shorthold. I shall tell the House. First, we should like registration of the fair rent at the beginning of the tenancy. That is something that the Minister says is not possible. If it is not possible, I would say that it is better not have a shorthold tenancy without it.

Mr. Stanley: I did not say that it was impossible. I said that it had not been possible to devise a satisfactory amendment so far and that we were continuing to work on the matter with a view to seeing whether we could produce such an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Kaufman: I am delighted about that, but during the course of the Bill so far the Minister has tabled about 300 amendments which he has found possible. This must be a particularly difficult amendment to table. That being so, this is a serious flaw in the whole shorthold context.
Secondly, we ask for a right of first refusal of renewal of the shorthold tenancy. Thirdly, we ask for a written agreement of shorthold tenancy to be deposited with the rent officer. Fourthly, we ask for statutory protection for the evicted shorthold tenant under the homeless persons legislation. Fifthly, we ask for the prevention of winkling—that means the prevention of a situation in which a landlord can persuade a protected regulated tenant to move into another property which he owns under a shorthold tenancy.
We moved amendments to that effect, and the Government rejected them. We asked for proper amenities of the sort that the hon. Member for Kensington was talking about. We asked also that the provision should apply only to empty properties. That is a demand that is made also by the Conservative-controlled Westminster council.
9.15 pm
We advanced all these arguments in Committee during 11 hours of debate. After those proceedings we waited to see what the Government would do. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an appeal to the Opposition. We responded to the sentiments of that appeal even before he made it. When we were asked by the Secretary of State for the Environment to enter into talks with him to ascertain whether a way could be found to achieve agreement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and I agreed to do so. We met the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister and had talks with them.
The Government would not budge from the position that they had taken in Committee. The Minister said this evening that the Government did all that they could to secure an agreement. They did all that they could except change their position. We cannot agree to the short-hold tenancy as it exists in the Bill.
When pressed in Committee, the Minister said that shortholds would come for


three sorts of property. The first of these was new build. The Minister said that there might be developers who would build new properties for letting under shorthold. We doubt that. Secondly, the Minister said that he believed that empty properties not previously let would come forward for shorthold. That is very much the point that the hon. Member for Kensington made. Thirdly, he said that properties which were currently regulated would fall vacant and would be turned by the landlord into shorthold tenancies.
It requires some imagination to believe that property speculators will build new property to let under shorthold. As for the letting of currently empty properties, the Small Landlords Association said that
the shorthold concept would not achieve the aim of increasing the supply of rented accommodation.
The Centre for Policy Studies, which I believe has some réclame and support in the Conservative Party, has stated:
 Proposals for shorthold tenancies are naive in the extreme. It is extremely unlikely that many lettings will result from these provisions.
I turn to the third form of property—tenancies which are currently regulated, which are fully protected under the Rent Acts and which will be converted by the landlord into shorthold when they fall vacant. That is what we believe will happen.
We were cautious about the original concept of shorthold as a means of bringing currently empty properties on to the market. The hon. Member for Kensington has told the House that he was excluded by the Government from the Committee that considered the Bill.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: By the Selection Committee.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the Government who decide which Conservative Members sit in Committee. The hon. Gentleman told us, in what I thought was a rather sad speech, that his main object was to get landlords to let. That is very different from what the shorthold provision is turning into. It is developing into a means of converting fully protected properties into properties that will have all protection removed from them. The Government's scheme steals the name of short-hold for another purpose entirely. It is a

deliberate device to end security of tenure and rent control for all private tenancies. The tenant will be at the mercy of the landlord. He will be able to tell the tenant to pay up or get out. In addition, he will be able to say "Pay up, and then get out ". All private tenants should know that the shorthold proposal will make them the target of the Tory Government's attack on private tenants.
The Bill is not only a landlord's charter, but is a sharks' charter. The provision represents the most dangerous attack on private tenants that has been made for 60 years.

Mr. Bendall: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall repeat the pledge that I made on behalf of the Labour Party. At the outset of these debates, the Labour Party had considerable misgivings about the shorthold provisions. However, we felt that our most constructive course of action would be to propose amendments that would provide safeguards. The Government rejected all of those amendments. They have ruthlessly used their majority to vote against them.
Even worse, admissions have been forced out of Ministers during the debate. Those admissions reveal that the dangers in the shorthold provisions are more serious than we had thought. While most—but not all—existing regulated tenants need to have no fears about their security of tenure under the Rent Acts, the same cannot be said for any new tenants who accept shorthold tenancies.
We share the scepticism of such bodies as the Small Landlords Association, and even the Centre for Policy Studies. The latter doubts whether shorthold provisions will create more than a few completely new tenancies. The danger is that winkling may occur where landlords own adjacent properties. Danger also lies in the conversion of regulated tenancies to shorthold tenancies when existing tenancies expire. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the new tenancies represent one of the most dangerous legislative developments to affect tenants of private landlords in the past 60 years. They mark the beginning of the end of genuine security of tenure.
The Labour Party wishes to make it clear that the next Labour Government will take an early opportunity to repeal


the shorthold tenancy clauses in the Bill. Those landlords who consider using shorthold tenancies should bear in mind that the next Labour Government will give all shorthold tenants and shorthold successor tenants full security of tenure and protection under the Rent Act. That will not affect the existing rights to repossession that are conferred by the Rent Act 1974, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government, on resident landlords, on those who let their homes while working abroad, and, on those who wish to return home for retirement.
We warn prospective shorthold tenants that they should not involve themselves

in such tenancies. Those who accept them might well become victims of a 1980 form of Rachmanism. The Government are acting as if they were the official sponsors of a revival of Rachmanism. They are the enemy of the private tenant, just as they are the enemy of the council tenant and of the would-be home owner, who has been priced out of the market by 15 per cent. mortgages. I therefore call upon my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 299.

Division No. 315]
AYES
[9.24 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kilfedder, James A.


Adams, Allen
Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert


Allaun, Frank
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kinnock, Neil


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken
Lamble, David


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamborn, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Evans, loan (Abordare)
Leighton, Ronald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ewing, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton a Slough)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Field, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beith, A. J.
Fitch, Alan
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitt, Gerard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McGuIre, Michael (Ince)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McKay, Allen (Penlstone)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
McNally, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Grtmond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hamilton), W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Conland, Bernard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F.
Haynes, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cowans, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Crowther, J. S.
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Horam, John
Morton, George


Dalyell, Tarn
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Davidson, Arthur
Howells, Geraint
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hudson, Davies Gwilym Ednyfed
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Hatloran, Michael


Davies, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughe", Robert (Aberdeen North)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Hon Grevltle
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Prescott, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Dubs, Alfred
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Race, Reg


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles




Richardson, Jo
Soley, Clive
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albort (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Allan (Boolle)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
Whitlock, William


Rooker, J. W.
Strang, Gavin
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley
Wiliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ryman, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sever, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Woodall, Alec


Short, Mrs Renée
Tilley, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Sllkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tlnn, James
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Torney, Tom
Wright, Sheila


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Young, David (Bolton East)


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David
Mr. Ted Graham and


Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hill, James


Altken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen
Hooson, Tom


Alison, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hordem, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dover, Denshore
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Ancram, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Arnold, Tom
Dunlop, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Robert (Darlford)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Durant, Tony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Eggar, Timothy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bell, Sir Ronald
Falrbalrn, Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bendall, Vivian
Falrgrleve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
King, Rt Hon Tom


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Best, Keith
Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knox, David


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lament, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lang, Ian


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Latham, Michael


Body, Richard
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Marcus
Lawson, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Lee, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant a Waterloo)


Brinton, Tim
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Loveridge, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'ttiorpe)
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Nell


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodlad, Alastalr
MacGregor, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian
Mackay, John (Argyll)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry
McQuarrie, Albert


Bulmer, Esmond
Grieve, Percy
Madel, David


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Major, John


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marland, Paul


Butler, Hon Adam
Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mather, Carol


Chalker. Mrs. Lynda
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, flay


Channel, Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Churchill, W. S.
Haselhurst, Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hastings, Stephen
Mellor, David


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rusbcllffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove S Redditch)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hawksley, Warren
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cope, John
Henderson, Barry
Moate, Roger


Carrie, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, James


Costain, A. P.
Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore, John







Morgan, Geraint
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Rossi, Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Myles, David
Rost, Peter
Trippler, David


Needham, Richard
Royle, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Nott, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, John


Osborn, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Parris, Matthew
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Waller, Gary


Patten, John (Oxford)
Speller, Tony
Walters, Dennis


Pattle, Geoffrey
Spence, John
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Warren, Kenneth


Percival, Sir Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Watson, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Sproat, lain
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pink, R. Bonner
Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Pollock, Alexander
Stainton, Keith
Wheeler, John


Porter, George
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Raymond


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stanley, John
Wickenden, Keith


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stevens, Martin
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stradllng Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Under the guillotine motion, I must now put Government amendments Nos. 117 and 64.

Clause 54

ORDERS FOR POSSESSION

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 35, line 35, leave out ' and ' and insert—
' ( ) it is served—
(a) in the period of three months immediately preceeding the date in which the protected shorthold tenancy comes to an end; or
(b) if that date has passed, in the period of three months immediately preceding any anniversary of that date; and '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 75

MEANING OF "PREMIUM" IN PART IX OF RENT ACT 1977

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 51, line 34 leave out ' under the tenancy '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 78

PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 77

Mr. Bendall: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in page 53, line 26, at end insert—

' (d) to effect the external appearance of the dwelling house.'.
The amendment is aimed at clearing up this area and I see no reason why the Government should not give serious consideration to my suggestion, which concerns the question of the external appearance of a property being changed by a tenant.
Many landlords, while encouraging tenants to carry out repairs and renovations, will be concerned that there could be a large structural alteration to the exterior of a property which could, in the long term, affect its market value. The amendment would make a small improvement and would tidy up the clause.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has pointed to the need for landlords to be able to restrict improvements that materially affect the external appearance of a dwelling. I assure my hon. Friend that I take his point, but I do not believe that it would be helpful to include an extra factor that the court should have to take into account when deciding on the reasonableness of a refusal to consent to an improvement.
A landlord has the power to withhold consent if it is reasonable to do so. That is his safeguard. The tenant has the right to challenge the refusal in court. That is an important safeguard for the tenant. The factors listed in clause 78(1) are a guide to the court but not an exclusive list.
My hon. Friend referred to value. The point about the value of the property is already covered within the three matters which it is recommended that a court should take into consideration.
If the landlord has a genuine and good reason for refusing consent, a court may uphold his refusal if it is challenged, whether or not there is an appropriate reference in clause 78. In other words, a court has to take an overall view of reasonableness. Planning consent may be needed for improvements materially affecting the external appearance of a dwelling. Looking at that problem from the tenant's viewpoint, we do not wish to place undue difficulties in the way of a tenant exercising his right. The purpose of part III of the Bill is to give a tenant a range of new freedoms.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Bill adequately safeguards the landlord's position, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Bendall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ' time ' to ' the ' in line 37.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 66 and 68.

Mr. Roberts: These are drafting amendments to protect the position of tenants whose landlords may seek to impose an unreasonable condition in consenting to an improvement. They complement the Government's acceptance of an Opposition amendment in Committee which added what is now subsection (4) to clause 78, making it clear that it is for a landlord to show that a condition he imposes is reasonable.
Amendment No. 65 removes words which are now superfluous. Amendment No. 66 provides that any consent given

subject to an unreasonable condition shall be held to have been unreasonably withheld. That is significant, because clause 77 (3) provides that any consent that is unreasonably withheld shall be treated as given. Amendment No. 68 will extend the power of the county court to issue a declaration on the question whether a declaration has been withheld or unreasonably withheld. That would encompass questions about whether the conditions were or were not reasonable because of the equation of unreasonable conditions with unreasonable refusal of consent. In Committee we undertook to bring forward such an amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 53, line 38, at end insert:
' and if the landlord gives the consent but subject to an unreasonable condition, the consent shall be taken to have been unreasonably withheld '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 82

JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND RULES OF PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 54, line 18, at beginning insert:
' Subject to section 11 of this Act '.

No. 68, in page 54, line 26, after ' was ', insert ' withheld or '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 86

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO DISPOSE OF LAND HELD FOR PURPOSES OF PART V OF HOUSING ACT 1957

Amendment made: No. 145, in page 58, line 7, after '105', insert '(1), (2) and (5) '.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 90

NEW HOUSING SUBSIDY TO REPLACE CERTAIN EXISTING SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 62, line 9, after ' in ' insert ' Part I of '.

No. 120, in page 62, line 9, at end insert:
'and
(c) no payment shall be made under any of the enactments listed in Part II of


Schedule 9 to this Act in respect of dwellings within a local authority's Housing Revenue Account or a new town corporation's housing account '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 92

THE BASE AMOUNT

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 62, line 40, at end insert:
' which is payable in respect of any dwelling within the authority's Housing Revenue Account ".—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 95

HOUSING SUBSIDY FOR OTHER BODIES

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 64, line 39, after ' sections ', insert ' 92 '—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 101

HOUSES ACQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL AFTER REPAIR, IMPROVEMENT OR CONVERSION

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 67, line 32, leave out
' acquiring and disposing of houses '
and insert
' disposing of dwellings '.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 70 and 76.

Mr. Roberts: In Committee we undertook to introduce amendments to incorporate into the improvement-for-sale scheme dwellings already in the ownership of local authorities.
The clause at present covers only houses acquired after enactment, but the amendments will make it possible for Exchequer contribution to be paid when local authorities improve and sell houses that they already own. This will offer a real opportunity for local authorities that have unoccupied and unimproved houses that they have already acquired from the private sector to get on with the necessary improvement work and to bring such houses back into use. I am sure that the Opposition will welcome this extension of the scheme.
The second of these amendments will remove the reference in lines 40 and 41 to the amount received on sale being less than the cost of acquisition and works.

This part of the amendment is being made for technical reasons and not with any intention of changing the underlying concept of the improvement-for-sale scheme.
Where an improved dwelling is sold outright with a mortgage provided by, for example, a building society, the actual amount received by the local authority is the appropriate figure to be used in determining the net cost to the local authority. But if the sale takes place on shared ownership terms, for example, or if the local authority itself provides the mortgage finance, using its powers under section 104 of the 1957 Act, the amount received will not be a true basis for calculating the net cost for the purposes of Exchequer contribution and the scheme will need to provide for net costs to be arrived at by reference to the value of the improved dwelling.
The effect will be no different in principle, but because of the number of different circumstances that will have to be covered it is more appropriate for this issue to be dealt with within the scheme itself rather than by extensive provision on the face of the Bill.
The second of the amendments will also enable contributions to be paid when two houses have been combined to form one dwelling. I do not expect that there will be many such cases, but sometimes individual houses or flats are too small to be viable after improvement, and it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of turning them into satisfactory houses.
The amendment to clause 119 will make parallel changes in the improvement for sale arrangements for housing associations.

Mr. Kaufman: I wish only to thank the Government for the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 67, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
' (2) Those cases are where an authority—

(a) disposes of a house as one dwelling;
(b) divides a house into two or more separate dwellings and disposes of them; or
(c) combines two houses to form one dwelling and disposes of it,

after carrying out works of repair, improvement or conversion.'—[Mr Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 103

LOCAL AUTHORITY MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 69, line 27, at end insert
' save that this subsection shall not apply where a local authority lends money on mortgage for the purchase of a dwelling-house under a scheme of low-start mortgages, index-linked mortgages or equity-sharing mortgages, under such a scheme the payments over the term shall be substantially equal to the total of payments which would have been made under the standard rates in force during the term.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 190, in page 69, line 35, leave out ' not
exceeding six months and.'.
No. 191, in page 69, line 37, leave out ' of six months and '.
No. 192, in page 69, line 44, leave out '¼ ' and insert ' 1 '.
No. 193, in page 70, line 6, leave out ' ¼ ' and insert ' 1 '.

Mr. Alton: Following discussions with other right hon. and hon. Members, and in an effort to try to facilitate debate, I have nothing to add.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 71, line 10, at end insert—
'(11A) This section does not apply to loans made by local authorities to housing associations under section 119 of the 1957 Act.'—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 104

LOCAL AUTHORITY AND HOUSING CORPORATION INDEMNITIES FOR BUILDING SOCIETIES

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 71, line 16, leave out from 'lending' to whereby ' in line 18 and insert
' on the security of house property '.
No. 73, in page 71, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (1) above "house property" means any property which is a house for the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 111

RENT REBATES ETC. AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in page 77, line 8, at end insert—
' (6) In section 22 of the 1972 Act (permitted totals of rent rebates and allowances) after subsection (1) there are inserted the following subsections—
(1A)The Secretary of State may, on application by an authority, direct that the authority's permitted total of rebates or allowances for such period as may be specified in the direction shall be such proportion of their standard amount of rent rebates or, as the case may be, standard amount of rent allowances, greater than 110 per cent., as may be specified in the direction.
(1B) Any direction given under subsection (1A) above may be made conditional upon compliance by the authority concerned with such conditions as may be specified in the direction.".
The purpose of the amendment is to provide a means of ensuring that no tenant need face a reduction in rent rebate or allowance as a result of the operation of clause 111. When councils are relieved by the clause of the obligation to reimburse the DHSS for rebates and allowances paid through supplementary benefit, the amount reimbursed will cease to be part of the standard amount of rebates and allowances paid by authorities.
Since councils are permitted to make discretionary additions of up to 10 per cent. of standard amounts, the side effect of the clause, unamended, would be to reduce their scope for such a discretion. The majority of councils will not be affected, but in a few cases—I believe probably only 10 or 12—councils would have to reduce their discretionary payments in order to stay within the 10 per cent.
I, therefore, think it right to provide a power to increase the permitted discretion in such cases. It would be the intention to use the power if, when the clause comes into force, tenants would otherwise face a reduction in rebate or allowance below their entitlement under local authority schemes as these now exist. This will, I hope, satisfactorily solve a problem that has been put to me on behalf of certain councils, and I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112

BORROWING POWERS OF HOUSING CORPORATION.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 77, line 16, at end add—
' (2) In ascertaining the limit imposed by that section any interest payable under section 7(6) of that Act on a loan made by the Secretary of State to the Housing Corporation which, with the approval of the Treasury, is deferred and treated as part of the loan, shall, so far as outstanding, be treated as outstanding by way of principal, whether the loan was made before or is made after the commencement of this section.'.
The need for the amendment arises from doubts that have been expressed about the interpretation of the Housing Corporation's borrowing limit under section 7 of the Housing Act 1974. The corporation receives annuity loans from the National Loans Fund. Since it is not normally possible for housing associations, to which funds are on-lent by the corporation, to make repayments until the construction of a scheme is completed, and housing association grant paid, interest on the corporation's borrowings from the National Loans Fund is accordingly deferred for three years, after which the corporation can choose to pay the accumulated interest or capitalise it. If it is capitalised, the sum in question is added to the original sum borrowed and the interest becomes payable on it.
Under the 1974 Act, it has been the practice to count against the borrowing limit only the advances made to the corporation but not the capitalised interest This has been of some concern to the Public Accounts Committee, which raised this question at its hearing on 16 April this year and expressed the view that in future capitalised interest should score against the borrowing limit. We had already appreciated that there was some doubt about how capitalised interest should be treated under the 1974 Act and had decided that the position should be made clear in the Bill.
I ask the House, therefore, to accept the amendment, which puts the treatment of capitalised interest beyond doubt and secures better control of the Housing Corporation's borrowing when it is treated in this way.

Mr. Costain: May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the misspelling of

the word "outstanding" in the amendment? I trust that it will be put right in the Bill.

Mr. Stanley: I have not identified the spelling mistake, but I shall be delighted to ensure that the Bill as reprinted for the Lords is correct in spelling and every other way.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 119

HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANT

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 80, line 18, leave out from 'where the association ' to the end of the subsection and insert—
' (a) disposes of a house as one dwelling;
(b) divides a house into two or more separate dwellings and disposes of them; or
(c) combines two houses to form one dwelling and disposes of it;
after carrying out works of repair, improvement or conversion.'.
No. 77, in page 80, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 31.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 123

WORKING BALANCE IN HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 82, line 29, at end add—
' (2) Any authority which keeps a Housing Revenue Account may from time to time carry to the credit of its general rate fund (or, as the case may be, the general fund or the general rate) the whole or part of any balance in its Housing Revenue Account.'.
In our consultation paper which we issued on 25 October 1979 we made public our intention to end the so-called no-profit rule under section 1(3) of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975. We also made it clear that we would bring forward separate proposals to deal with the resulting credit balances. The Bill as introduced incorporated the abolition of the no-profit rule and this has received an overwhelmingly favourable response from local authorities.
On 2 April, we issued a consultative paper on the use of credit balances proposing that this should be wholly at the discretion of local authorities. Both the


AMA and the ADC have welcomed our proposal. However, the ADC has asked that credit balances should be allowed to augment the HIP allocations of local authorities. 
Amendment No. 78 gives effect to our proposal. When credit balances rise local authorities will be able to decide whether any part of that balance should be transferred to the general rate fund. The entire balance can, of course, be applied for housing purposes. Should authorities wish to apply the balance to maintenance and repairs there is no limitation on their doing so, or on the amount of balance that can be spent in that way.
The provisions of clause 124, which enable local authorities to operate a housing repairs account and to transfer funds to it from a housing revenue account, should facilitate the application of balances to repairs. Should they wish to apply balances to finance capital spending, whether on new building or improvements, they will be able to do so, as now, within their overall HIP allocation.
We have considered with care whether authorities' HIP allocation should be increased by the amount of any credit balance arising on their housing revenue account. Our conclusion is that such a step would be inequitable, because the total HIP allocation is set for the country as a whole. Increasing individual allocations within that total for some authorities can only reduce them for others. The presumption must be that the authorities with the greatest claim on available expenditure are probably those least likely to be able to increase their allocations by creating credit balances. Therefore, I cannot agree to the proposal made by the ADC, since it would work to the disadvantage of the stress area authorities.
We considered the possibility of the Exchequer clawing back a proportion of any credit balance, as was done in the 1972 Act We decided against that. That was welcomed by the local authorities. Our conclusion is that local authorities should be responsible both for the creation and the use of any credit balances. The result will be to mirror the arrangements under which authorities are, and will remain, entirely free to make such rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account as they choose. Our proposals will enable them to transfer in the reverse direction. In both cases

they will be accountable for their decisions to their electorates.
We consider that this is a proper extension of local authority responsibility. It has been warmly welcomed by the authorities.

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) had been Chairman of our Standing Committee we should have been deprived of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Booth-royd) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), but he would have ensured that the only thing wrong with the Bill was the spelling mistakes. I only wish that that was all that was wrong with the Bill. The Minister is being disingenuous in a way that we do not expect of him if he really believes that it is a non-controversial and innocuous proposal. The proposal is deeply objectionable and we shall vote against it.
The proposal ends the no-profits rule in the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, under which local authorities are prevented from making a profit from rents. Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to make a profit out of rent. Since the Government's policy is to force up council rents, the prospect of profits becomes great. In their advice to local authorities the Government say that they wish average council house rents this year to rise by £1·80—a 28 per cent, increase on the average council house rent. The implication of the subsidy provision in the Bill and of the public expenditure White Paper cuts in housing expenditure is not only that council house building will sink almost to nil in many areas, but that rents will be forced up to a very high level.
10 pm
The Government are providing for and permitting that by removing the no-profit rule in the Bill. That is bad enough, and we find it both objectionable and odious. But now we have an addendum—namely, what the Government will allow to be done with the profits that they are inducing, and in many cases requiring, local authorities to make. The Government are saying to local authorities "Force your council house tenants to pay high rents. Although your tenants are poorer than the generality of your ratepayers, although the average household income of


council tenants is only 76 per cent. of that of other households in the community, and although your council house tenants are poorer than the rest of the community, the profits that you are making by forcing them to pay unnecessarily high rents shall be used to relieve and to reduce the rate burden on the better-off members of the community."
That is a peculiar reverse action of the Marxist slogan
 From each according to his abilities.
People will be taxed by a Government increase beyond their ability to pay. The proceeds of that tax will be used to

relieve taxation on the more affluent ratepayers.
Council tenants in the poorer inner areas of Manchester will be made to pay high rents, which will be used to relieve the rates paid by the better-off living in the outer areas of Manchester. That will happen in every great city. That is why we find the proposal objectionable. It is a reversion to something in the Housing Finance Act 1972 that we also found objectionable and repealed when we returned to office.
Because we regard it as morally wrong that the poor should be taxed to help the rich, we ask the House to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Gummer: I rise to speak on this matter because, once again, we are seeing a monochrome attitude by Opposition Members—as though the whole country were exactly the same as the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). Many of us represent constituencies where the problems are very different from those that he has outlined. Many of the poorest people in my constituency live, not in council houses, but in private properties, often in the depths of the country, which they bought cheaply many years ago. As they have become older they have been less and less able to maintain them, because the rate burden has increased year by year.
In local authorities, such as the Mid-Suffolk district council or the Suffolk coastal district council, there is a proper rent rebate system, which enables the local authority to help the poorest council tenants in the amount of rent that they pay. It is more difficult for them to do something similar with the rates in general.
We have already had one terrible blow to our area this evening. The right hon. Member for Ardwick made the most disgraceful statement that I have heard in the House for a long time. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is talking simply because he finds it difficult to listen to the truth. We know that the numbers of homeless will rise again because of what has been said in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should not agree to the amendment, but it will provide one of the small ways in which a local authority will have more control over how best to deal with its local problems.
That is the trouble with the whole of the debates in the House on this sort of subject. We have begun to believe that Westminster alone understands every scintilla of what happens in the country as a whole.
We are supposed to be not only omnipresent, but omniscient. Evidently we are able to draw up the most minute details and to tell every council in the country that to make a profit on its housing revenue account is totally evil in all circumstances. I am sure that many hon.

Members on both sides of the House in their heart of hearts believe that local authorities often make better decisions on how best to arrange their finances in the interests of their areas than we can possibly make here.
Why are we so afraid of local democracy? The answer to the right hon. Member for Ardwick is simple. If the Manchester councils behave in the way that he suggested, they must have their political complexion or membership changed at the elections. If they do not behave in the way that he suggested, no doubt whoever is making those decisions will get brownie points with the electorate. To suggest that we in this House have to guard every section of the community, every kind of constituency, against the decisions of locally elected councils is very worrying.
I hope that the House will support this proposal. It will mean that, for example, my local authority will have the kind of flexibility which it has sought for a long time and without which it will not be able to aim at the people most in need the subsidy and help that it gets. To talk of the public as though they can be categorised easily into council and non-council tenants—that council tenants are poor and that non-council tenants are rich—is not only nonsense but something that the right hon. Member for Ardwick can prove to himself to be wrong any time he cares to take a walk outside this House. The fact is that the local authority is more likely to make sensible decisions within the local context than this House is ever likely to make, particularly if it takes the advice of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in objecting to the amendment. I do not think that he put the argument strongly enough. Irrespective of what was said by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), statistics prove that council tenants are, on the whole, the poorer section of the community.
My right hon. Friend under-estimated the statistics when he said that the average income of council tenants was about 76 per cent. of that of the community as a whole. I believe that the figure is slightly


lower—about 70 per cent. Therefore, on the whole, council tenants are the lower income group in the community.
The proposal is particularly obnoxious because it amounts to a transfer of resources from the poorer to the richer section of the community. My right hon. Friend did not put the argument strongly

enough. This is a question not of taxing people in the general sense but of directly taxing the poorer section of the community.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 231.

Division No. 316]
AYES
[10.08 pm


Adley, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David


Alexander, Richard
Faith, Mrs sheila
Lamont, Norman


Alison, Michael
Farr, John
Lang, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Former, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Geotlrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lee, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Banks, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, john


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lyell, Nicholas


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McGrindle Robert


Best, Keith
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacGregor John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ramour Rt. Hon Sirlan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
McQuarrie Albert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Major John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marland, Paul


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish
Marlow, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Hairy
Marshall Mirhaol (Arundel)


Bright, Graham
Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mathor Carel


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawby, Ray


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brotherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
mills, lain (Menoen)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John


Burden, F.A.
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Butler, Hot Adam
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Channon. Paul
Hicks, Robert
Myles, David


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
oppenhpeim Rt Hnn Mrs Sally


Cope, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Corrle, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page" John (Harrow, West)


Costain A. P.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
rage, Richard (Sw Henfordshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parris Matthew


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dover, Denshore
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert (Dartlord)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Durant, Tony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Sir Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Keliett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner


Eggar, Timothy
King, Rt Hon Tom
Pollock, Alexander


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Porter, George


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)




Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Spence, John
Viggers, Peter


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waddington, David


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wakeham, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Sproat, lain
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Squire, Robin
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Renton, Tim
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Rhodes James, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stevens, Martin
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Rossi, Hugh
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wickenden, Keith


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tebbit, Norman
Wfggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thome, Nell (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville
Mr. Anthony Berry




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank
Janner, Hon Greville


Adams, Allen
Dormand, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Allaun. Frank
Douglas, Dick
John, Brynmor


Alton, David
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kerr, Russell


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken
Kilfedder, James A.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lambie, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry
Lamborn, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Field, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Fitch, Alan
Leighton, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ford, Ben
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Forrester, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McElhone, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McKay, Allen (Penlstone)


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNally, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter
McWilllam, John


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Magee, Bryan


Cook, Robin F.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Cowans, Harry
Haynes, Frank
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Crowther, J. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Home Robertson, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Homewood, William
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
Hooley, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davidson, Arthur
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openehaw)


Deakins, Eric
Hudson, Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Newens, Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Hushes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon







Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


O'Neill, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Parry, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Welsh, Michael


Penhaligon, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Soley, Clive
Whitlock, William


Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Race, Reg
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Richardson, Jo
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wright, Sheila


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Rowlands, Ted
Tilley, John



Ryman, John
Tlnn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Sandelson, Neville
Torney, Tom
Mr. George Morton and


Sever, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 124

HOUSING REPAIRS ACCOUNT

Amendments made:

No. 80, in page 83, line 6, leave out '(5) or'.

No. 81, in page 83, line 15, leave out from ' balance ' to end of line 24.

No. 82, in page 83, line 27, leave out
with the Secretary of State's approval ".

No. 83, in page 83, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert
 If an authority which has opened a Housing Repairs Account ceases to ".

No. 84, in page 84, line 7, leave out ' or (4)(b)'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Schedule 9

SUPERSEDED ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SUBSIDIES, GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Amendment made:  No. 123, in page 105, leave out line 8.—[Mr. Stanley]

Schedule 10

AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (c.44), PART VII (LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANTS)

Amendment proposed: No. 197, in page 106, line 49, at end insert—
'6A. In Section 64(3)(a) for "£2,000" substitute" £7,000 "and for" £2,400 "substitute" £8,000 "and at the end of the subsection add" orders under this subsection may specify different amounts for different cases and descriptions of case.".'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 290.

Division No. 317]
AYES
[10.23 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Cook, Robin F.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Oyer, Bob
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Evans, loan (Abordare)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dalyell, Tarn
Field, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Fitt, Gerard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, lfor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Davies, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ginsburg, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dempsey, James
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Dobson, Frank
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cartwright John
Dormand, Jack
Grant, John (Islington C)


Clark, Dr David (South Shield*)
Douglas, Dick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cohen, Stanley
Dubs, Alfred
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy




Haynes, Frank
Magee, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Stoddart, David


Homewood, William
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Meacher, Michael
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Howells, Geraint
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hudson, Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morton, George
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Janner, Hon Greville
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tilley, John


John, Brynmor
Newens, Stanley
Tinn, James


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Neill, Martin
Weetch, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Kilfedder, James A.
Penhaligon, David
Whitlock, William


Lamble, David
Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted
Winnlck, David


Litherland, Robert
Ryman, John
Woodall, Alec


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sandelson, Neville
Wrigglesworth. Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Sever, John
Wright, Sheila


McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Young, David (Bolton East)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Oulwlch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKelvey, William
Silverman, Julius
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dermis
Mr. Cyril Smith.


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynoa
Gower, Sir Raymond


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish


Alison, Michael
Churchill, W. S.
Greenway, Harry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grieve, Percy


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clegg, Sir Walter
Grist, Ian


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Cockeram, Eric
Grylls, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Cope, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Corrie, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)


Banks, Robert
Costoin, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bell, Sir Ronald
Crouch, David
Hannnm, John


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hastings, Stephen


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dover, Denshore
Hawkins, Paul


Best, Keith
du Carm, Rt Hon Edward
Hawksley, Warren


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hayhoe, Barney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Tony
Heddle, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Henderson, Barry


Blackburn, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
HeseHine, Rt Hon Michael


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Body, Richard
Eggar, Timothy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Peter
Hill, James


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fairbalrn, Nichola.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fairgrieve, Russell
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hooson, Tom


Bright, Graham
Fell, Anthony
Hordern, Peter


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, Michael (Brigg ft Sc'thorpe)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bruce-Gaidyne, John
Forman, Nigel
Jessel, Toby


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Refgate)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Edward (South Fyide)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Burden, F. A.
Garel Jones, Tristan
Kimball, Marcus


Butcher, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butler, Hon Adam
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Goodhew, Victor
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gow, Ian
Lang, Ian







Langford-Holt, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Latham, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Osborn, John
Stanley, John


Lawson, Nigel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


Lee, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Stevens, Martin


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Parris, Matthew
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stokes, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Pattle, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pawsey, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Sir Ian
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lyell, Nicholas
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Porter, George
Thompson, Donald


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McQuarrie, Albert
Raison, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Madel, David
Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Major, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Trotter, Neville


Marland, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marlow, Tony
Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wakeham, John


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mellor, David
Rost, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Moore, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)
Wickenden, Keith


Morgan, Geraint
Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Sims, Roger
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Wolfson, Mark


Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Myles, David
Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neubert, Michael
Sproat, lain
Mr. John MacGregor and


Nott, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 April] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

Schedule 15

AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF SECTIONS 19 AND 20 OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (c.44)

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 125, line 25, at end insert—

' Appointment of persons to conduct inquiries
In section 19, in subsection (1), the words "(who may or may not be a member of the Corporation's staff)" are hereby repealed; and after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
(1A) No person who is, or at any time has been, a member of the Corporation's staff shall be appointed to conduct an inquiry under subsection (1) above.".'.—[Mr. Hesel-tine.]

Schedule 16

AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (c.44) PART III

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 127, line 26, at end insert—
' 1A. In section 29, after subsection (6) there is inserted the following subsection—
 (6A) In determining the net cost of a housing project under subsection (6) above the Secretary of State may adopt the assessment of the body forwarding the application under subsection (3) above.

Approved development programmes

1B. After section 29 there is inserted the following section—
29A.—(1) In this section "approved development programme "means any programme for the development of housing by registered housing associations prepared by the Housing Corporation or—

(a) in England and Wales, by a council which has power under section 119 of the Housing Act 1957 to make loans to registered housing associations; or


(b) in Scotland, by a local authority; and approved for the time being by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

(2) Where a registered housing association undertake a housing project which falls within an approved development programme, housing association grant may be paid under section 29 in respect of that project notwithstanding that it has not been approved by the Secretary of State under section 29(1).".'.

No. 95, in page 127, line 33, at end insert—
'2A. For subsection (3) of section 30 there are substituted the following subsections—
 (3) If, after the making of a housing association grant to a registered housing association—

(a) any land to which the grant relates has been disposed of by the association in any manner;
(b) any condition imposed under subsection (2) above has not been complied with; or
(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that any land to which the grant relates has ceased to be used, or to be available for use, for the purpose for which at the time the project concerned was approved,

it was intended that it should be used; the Secretary of State may reduce the amount of, or of any payment in respect of the grant or suspend or discontinue any instalment of it or, where any payment has been made to the association in respect of the grant, direct the association to pay to him an amount equal to the whole, or such proportion as he may determine, of the amount so paid to the association.
(A3) Any amount which a registered housing association is directed to repay to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt, or in Scotland as a debt due under a contract, in any court of competent jurisdiction.".

2B. Subsection (5) of section 30 is hereby repealed.'.

No. 131, in page 127, line 33, at end insert—
' 2A. After subsection (2) of section 30 there is inserted the following subsection—
(2A) In any case where, by virtue of section 29A above, a housing project has not required the approval of the Secretary of State under section 29(1), the Secretary of State may impose such conditions as are mentioned in subsection (2) above before first making payment of housing association grant in respect of that project.".'.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Clause 125

SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 84, line 27, at end insert—
'(3) After Section 71 of the Rent Act 1977 there shall be inserted the following section:—

 71A.—(1) This section applies where the landlord and/or the tenant request the Rent Officer, or as the case may be, the Rent Assessment Committee to register or re-register a rent which includes an amount in respect of the provision of services by the landlord.
(2) The landlord shall supply the tenant with a written summary of the costs incurred or amounts defrayed in respect of the provision of the said services in the relevant period defined in subsection (5) below, not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the consultation by the Rent Officer or, as the case may be, the hearing before the Rent Assessment Committee.
(3) The summary shall set out those costs or amounts and the way in which they reflect the provision of services to the tenant, and, if there are more than four flats in the building or the relevant cost or amounts relate to another building also it must;

(a) be certified by a qualified accountant as being sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to him; and
(b) contain such information as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe by Order.

(4) Where a tenant has obtained such a summary as is referred to in subsection (2), if, before the date fixed for the said consultation, or as the case may be, hearing, he requires the landlord in writing to afford him reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts, receipts, and other documents supporting the summary and for taking copies or extracts from them, the landlord shall then make such facilities available to the tenant and the Rent Officer, or as the case may be, the Rent Assessment Committee shall postpone the said consultation or the said hearing until a date not earlier than 14 days after the date appointed by the landlord for such inspection.
(5) The relevant period mentioned in subsection (2) above is:

(a) that specified in Schedule 17, paragraph 7(4)(a) to the Housing Act 1980;
(b) that specified in Schedule 17, paragraph 7(4)(b) to the Housing Act 1980.

(6) If the landlord shall fail to perform any duty imposed on him by subsections (2) or (4) above, the Rent Officer, or as the case may be, the Rent Assessment Committee, shall postpone the consultation or hearing until not earlier than 14 days after the landlord shall have performed such duties.
(7)(i) Costs incurred in the provision of services by the landlord should only be taken into account by the Rent Officer, or as the case may be, the Rent Assesment Committee, to the extent that:

(a) the costs have been incurred in the provision of chargeable items to a reasonable standard; and
(b) the costs incurred in respect of the chargeable items, were reasonable,

(ii) The costs of carrying out works of improvements are to be deemed, by the Rent Officer, or as the case may be, the Rent Assessment Committee, to be reasonable only to the extent that they were undertaken:



(a) to comply with any of the provisions of the Housing Acts 1957 to 1969; or
(b) with the prior written consent of the recognised Tenants' Association or, if no such body exists, or it is not truly independent, of the tenant provided that, in the case of the tenant, such consent is not unreasonably withheld.

(iii) If the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the implied covenant provided by section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 in respect of his dwelling, no part of the costs incurred by the landlord or the carrying out of prescribed works to the rest of the building of which the tenants' dwelling forms a part or to any other buildings, shall be taken into account.
The prescribed works for the purposes of this subsection shall be defined as works carried out:

(a) to keep in repair the structure and the exterior of the building (including drains, gutters and external pipes); and
(b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the building—

(i) for the supply of gas, water and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences but not, except as aforesaid, fixtures fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of gas, water and electricity); and
(ii) for space heating or heating water; and
(iii) for the provision of services which the landlord provides or is obliged to provide whether by statute or contract.

(8) A request under paragraph 7 above shall be deemed to be duly served on a landlord if it is served on any agent of the landlord named as such in the rent book or similar document, or on the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and a person on whom a request is so served shall forward it as soon as may be to the landlord.
(9) (i) If any person without reasonable excuse fails to perform any duty imposed on him by the Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000.
(ii) Where an offence under this Schedule which has been committeed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent of connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(iii) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(10) For the purposes of this Section a qualified accountant shall be defined as set out in paragraph 17 of Schedule 15 to the Housing Act 1980 ".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 94, in page 129, line 25, leave out Schedule 17 and insert—

'Service charge and relevant costs

1.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a charge is an amount payable by the tenant of a flat of or in addition to the rent—

(a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance or insurance or the landlord's cost of management; and
(b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs;

and the relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs (including overheads) incurred or to be incurred in any period (whether the period for which the service charge is payable or an earlier or late period) by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable.

(2) Other expressions used in this Schedule are to be construed in accordance with paragraphs 24 to 31 below.

Limitation of service charge

2. The extent to which relevant costs are taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for any period shall be limited in accordance with the following paragraphs, and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly; and where the service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, any necessary adjustments shall be made by repayment, reduction of subsequent charges or otherwise.

(3)—(1) Costs incurred are to be taken into account only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred and costs incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works only to the extent that the services have been provided or the works carried out to a reasonable standard.

(2) The limitations imposed by this Schedule shall not apply to estimated costs representing a reasonable provision for future expenses of a non-annual nature, or a reasonable contribution towards a reserve fund in respect of future expenses until such time as the expenditure is incurred.

(3) The test of reasonableness is to be applied after the audited accounts are produced and actual costs incurred for the service charge year are known.

4.—(1) Where the costs to be incurred are for building repair or decoration works or the replacement of plant or machinery, fixtures or fittings, and are likely to exceed the amount prescribed by or under this paragraph, the procedure under paragraphs 5 and 6 below shall be complied with unless dispensed with under paragraph 8.

(2) The prescribed amount is £25 multiplied by the number of flats in the building or £500. whichever is the greater, but the Secretary of State may by order substitute a different amount for £25 or £500 or both, and such substitution may contain different amounts for different areas or regions.

(3) If the procedure under paragraphs 5 or 6 is not complied with any costs incurred beyond the prescribed amount shall not be taken into account unless relief is granted under paragraph 8.

5.—(1) The following procedure shall be observed where no recognised tenants' association exists.

(2) At least two estimates shall be obtained, one of them from a person wholly unconnected with the landlord.

(3) The landlord shall notify each tenant as registered in the landlord's records of the proposed works, the persons estimating, the amount of each estimate and the recommendation of the landlord. The landlord shall effect such notification by leaving at each flat a letter addressed to the tenant containing the requisite information, and such letter shall be sufficiently addressed if it is addressed to "the Tenant" generally and does not give the tenant's name. Each such letter shall contain a statement that the tenant has 14 days from the date of service either to approve the landlord's recommendation or to raise objections in writing and that if less than 50 per cent. of the tenants object, the works will be proceeded with and the cost of such works will be considered as reasonable.

(4) The landlord shall record the response to the letter and if less than 50 per cent of the tenants record objections he may order the works 21 days after the day of service.

(5) Where a building comprises some flats which have not been let on a long lease the landlord may record one vote for each unlet flat as if he were the tenant.

(6) If more than 50 per cent. of the tenants raise objections in writing the landlord shall, within 28 days of serving the letter, convene a meeting with the tenants to discuss the landlord's recommendation and/or any alternatives suggested by the tenants.

(7) If at such meeting more than 50 per cent. of the tenants accept the landlord's recommendation or any suggested alternative, the landlord may proceed with the work on the basis of his recommendation or the agreed alternative and the cost of such work shall be considered reasonable.

(8) In default of such agreement, the landlord may apply to the county court for directions, and the cost of such proceedings shall be allowed as relevant costs unless the court shall direct otherwise having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties.

(9) This procedure shall not apply where the works are of an emergency nature or are required to be carried out under a statutory notice which has been served upon the landlord. In such instances the landlord shall advise each tenant in writing of the nature of the works, the estimated costs and the grounds upon which exemption from the full requirements are based.

6.—(1) The following shall be observed where a recognised tenants' association exists.

(2) The landlord shall advise the secretary of the tenants' association of the proposals for the work and the names of at least two

persons who are to be approached to submit an estimate.

(3) The secretary of the tenants' association may within seven days of receipt of such advice inform the landlord of any other persons (not exceeding two) whom the tenants' association wish to be requested to submit an estimate or of any deletions required to the landlord's list

(4) The landlord shall obtain estimates for the work from the persons agreed with the tenants" association under sub-paragraph (3) above.

(5) Copies of estimates when received shall be served on the secretary of the tenants' association by hand or by post together with a letter setting out the landlord's recommendations and containing a statement that the association may within 14 days from the day of service accept the landlords recommendations lodge an objection or require a meeting to discuss the recommendations and that in default of doing so the tenants shall be deemed to have accepted the landlord's recommendations and the cost of such works shall be considered as reasonable.

(6) The association shall be under a duty to consult with the tenants in the building and to convey to the landlord the wishes of the tenants. If the association do not reply within the said period of 14 days the tenants shall be deemed to have accepted the landlord's recommendations and the costs incurred in carrying out the proposed works shall be considered reasonable.

(7) If a meeting is required by the tenants' association such meeting shall take place within 28 days of the landlord serving the estimates and letter, or such other period as may be agreed between the landlord and the secretary of the tenants' association.

(8) When the tenants' association object to the landlord's recommendations a meeting must be held within 28 days of the date of the objection to discuss alternative proposals. Failing agreement on such alternative proposals the landlord may apply to the county court for directions, the cost of such proceedings shall be relevant costs unless the Court shall direct otherwise having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties.

(9) This procedure shall not apply where the works are of an emergency nature or are required to be carried out under a statutory notice which has been served upon the landlord. In such instances the landlord shall inform the secretary of the tenants' association in writing of the nature of the works, the estimated costs and the grounds upon which exemption from the full requirements are based.

7. For the purpose of paragraphs 5 and 6 above the landlord shall also mean his duly appointed agent, if any.

8. In any proceedings relating to a service charge the court may dispense with all or any of the requirements if it appears to the court that the landlord could not reasonably have been expected to comply with them or the court is of the opinion that notwithstanding that all or any of the requirements have not been complies with it is just and equitable to do so.

Estimation of Relevant Costs

9. —(1) The relevant costs shall be estimated annually in advance by or on behalf of the landlord such estimate to be certified by an approved person or body and adjusted to reflect the actual costs incurred after the end of the service charge year as reflected in the audited service charge accounts.

(2) The estimate shall form the basis of demands for payments in advance by the tenant and where appropriate, the landlord, on such periodic basis as shall be agreed by the parties or as is provided in the lease or underlease, such periods to be no less than quarterly.

(3) The audited account shall form the basis of demands or credits between the estimated costs and the actual costs.

(4) Where the existing lease provides for the payment of service charges in arrear such provisions shall cease to take effect at the commencement of the next service charge year after the commencement of this Schedule providing that any charges for former years not yet demanded shall be phased equally over a period of five years from the commencement of the next service charge year.

10.—(1) The estimate of service costs for the service charge year shall be produced by the landlord or his agent two months prior to the commencement of the service charge year and shall show by means of itemised headings the estimated costs for the year based upon previous expenditure for the item and adjusted for price rises, additions or deletions to services and any other relevant factors.

(2) The estimate shall include an amount to be set aside as a reserve fund and such amount shall be substantiated by means of a reserve fund calculation showing how the figure has been arrived at and when the works covered are likely to be carried out.

(3) The estimate shall be agreed by the following procedure:

(a) Where no recognised tenants' association exists it shall be approved by an independent trustee and the landlord or his agent shall submit to the trustee such information as may be required to enable the trustee to certify approval. The trustees may require amendment to all or any of the figures before certifying the estimate. The estimate when circulated to the tenants shall have a certificate attached thereto which indicates the trustees approval;
(b) where a recognised tenants' association exists it shall be consulted on the content of the estimate within one month of the estimate being produced. The tenants' association and the landlord or his agent shall use their best endeavours to agree the estimate and failing agreement on any point the matter shall be referred to an independent trustee jointly agreed by the parties for determination. A certificate shall be attached to the estimate when circulated to the tenants indicating either that the estimate has been approved by the tenants' association or by the trustee if so referred; and
(c) failing agreement by the parties on the appointment of the independent trustee, the matter shall be referred to the President of

the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators for him to appoint the independent trustee.

(4) The procedure shall be completed and the estimate circulated to tenants within one month of the commencement of the service charge year unless an extension is agreed between the landlord and tenants or the recognised tenants' association.

(5) In this paragraph an independent trustee shall mean a person or body who is either a member of a recognised professional body whose members undertake the management of flats or who is a specialist in the administration and management of blocks of flats. He shall not be an officer employee or agent of the landlord. Such trustee shall be entitled to a fee not exceeding 1 per cent. of the certified estimate and such fee shall be allowed as relevant costs.

(6) Where the services to the building are already administered by a Maintenance Trustee who has no legal title in the building but who is a landlord by virtue of the definition of landlord in this Schedule, such Maintenance Trustee shall be regarded as the independent trustee for the purposes of this paragraph notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (5) but he shall not he entitled to the 1 per cent. fee if a fee is already being paid for his services.

Treatment of Reserve Funds

11.—(1) The reserve fund provision contained within the service charges shall be paid by the landlord or his agent to the trustee within one month of the landlord or his agent receiving payment from the tenant and shall be held by the trustee in trust for the tenants until required to be expended and shall in the meantime be placed on deposit or invested at interest in the manner provided below.

(2) The trustee may invest the reserve fund in the following manner:

(a) fixed date Government securities redeemable at par;
(b) deposit accounts with Clearing Banks; and
(c) loans to local authorities.

(3) All interest received shall be credited to the reserve fund.

(4) Any commissions received by the trustee shall be credited to the reserve fund.

(5) Withdrawals from the fund shall only be made against the certificate of the landlord's surveyor and the trustee shall satisfy himself that such withdrawals are to be expended on the purposes of the fund except that temporary withdrawals may be made in accordance with paragraph 18 of this Schedule.

(6) The trustee may amalgamate several such reserve funds for investment purposes provided that accurate records are kept for each individual fund.

(7) The trustee shall provide the service charge auditors with such information as they deem necessary in order to satisfy them that the reserve fund is properly accounted for.

(8) The trustee shall be entitled to a reasonable fee for his services which shall be allowed as relevant costs and may be deducted from the reserve fund held by him.

(9) In this paragraph the trustee shall mean a joint stock bank or insurance company or a public company which is a trust corporation as defined in the Trustee Act 1925 and who is independent of the landlord except for arrangements similar to those described in this paragraph or paragraph 10 in this Schedule except that where the landlord is already a maintenance trustee who has no title in the property or is a joint stock bank or insurance company, it may act as the trustee for the purposes of this paragraph but shall be entitled to no additional fee other than that already prescribed by the lease.

Information as to relevant costs

12. The landlord or his agent shall produce a detailed account showing the expenditure during the service charge year under suitable headings and a statement of the reserve fund showing additions, expenditure and interest received. Such account shall be audited by an approved person, and the account and auditor's report shall be circulated to each tenant within eight months of the end of the service charge year.

13.—(1) The tenant shall be entitled to view the vouchers which support the audited account by giving notice to the landlord or his agent not later than six weeks after the audited account has been circulated, except that where a recognised tenants' association exists this entitlement shall be exercised by an officer of the association on behalf of all the tenants.

(2) The landlord shall make available at his office or at the office of his agent all the vouchers for a period of two months following receipt of a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) If any of the vouchers are held by any superior landlord, the landlord shall forward a copy of the tenant's or tenants' association's notice to the superior landlord. Upon receipt of such copy notice the superior landlord shall similarly make the vouchers available at his office or the office of his agent.

(4) Where the office of the landlord or superior landlord or their respective agent is outside a radius of 25 miles of the building, the vouchers or copies thereof shall be supplied by post if so requested by the tenant or tenants' association, and the reasonable cost of such copies shall be paid for the person serving the notice.

Effect of assignment

14. The assignment of a tenancy shall not affect the validity of a notice served under paragraph 13 above before the assignment but a person shall not be obliged to make facilities available more than once for the same flat and for the same period.

Determination of reasonableness

15. Any agreement made by a tenant of a flat, other than an arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1950, shall be void insofar as it purports to provide for a determination in a particular manner or on particular evidence of any question whether costs for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management were reasonably incurred or whether services or works for

which costs are incurred are of a reasonable standard except as provided for in this Schedule.

16. The County Court, on the application of the landlord or tenant of a flat, may by order, in relation to any chargeable items specified in the order, declare:

(a) that they have or have not been provided to a reasonable standard;
(b) that the amount alleged to be payable
in respect of them is or is not reasonable; and may direct the amount to be paid by the tenant in consequence of the declaration; or, in respect of services or works not yet provided or carried out; and
(c) that the steps which the landlord intends to take in order to comply with any of the requirements of this Schedule are or are not reasonable in the circumstances.

Overseas landlords

17.—(1) An overseas landlord is a person or body whose place of business or whose registered offices are not within the United Kingdom.

(2) Where the landlord of a block of flats is an overseas landlord he shall by the 1st January 1981 appoint by deed a person or body whose place of business is or whose registered offices are within the United Kingdom to act in his place in all matters relating to service charges and consultation as contained within this Schedule and at all times thereafter maintain such an appointment.

(3) The landlord shall forthwith notify the tenants or the recognised tenants' association of such appointment.

Covenants and conditions to be implied in leases

18.—(1) By virtue of this Schedule the following covenants shall be implied by the landlord:

(a) That the service charge payments received from each tenant shall be paid into a bank account with a joint stock bank, such account to be operated solely for service charges and to be separate from the landlord's own moneys;
(b) that if more than one building's service charges are paid into the account, sufficient records shall be kept to identify the individual balances for each building;
(c) that the landlord shall pay into the said bank account service charges for any flats which are not let on a long lease by paying such a sum as will amount to the difference between the aggregate service charges payable in respect of the flats let on long lease and 100 per cent. of the relevant costs. Such payment is to be made at the agreed periodic dates as defined in paragraph 9(2) of this Schedule; and
(d) where there is a deficiency in such bank account due to arrears of service charges or to actual expenditure exceeding the estimate, the landlord shall apply to the trustee for a temporary loan from the reserve fund, and shall repay such loan immediately when the deficiency has been made good.

(2) It shall be an implied condition of any tenancy to which this Schedule applies that any interest charged on an overdraft in such bank account shall form part of the relevant costs provided such interest was not incurred by the landlord's failure to pay his contribution or to apply to the trustee for a loan in which case the interest shall be a charge on the landlord and shall not be allowed as relevant costs.

Insurance

19.—(1) Where a lease provides that the fire and other insurance for the building are to be placed through the landlord's nominated insurance company or through any particular insurance company or through the landlord's agency such provisions shall be of no effect.

(2) The landlord shall place the insurance with an insurance company of repute who normally undertake the insurance of buildings or at Lloyds and in placing the said insurance he shall have regard to the terms being offered and the premium being charged by the aforesaid.

(3) At least once in every five years the landlord shall obtain quotations from at least two insurance companies of repute who transact building insurance. A quotation from Lloyds shall be regarded as a quotation from one insurance company for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

(4) Nothing contained within this paragraph shall prevent the landlord from entering into a long term agreement with an insurance company for a period not exceeding five years providing such agreement produces a reduction in premium.

(5) Such insurance may incorporate excess provisions of a usual nature.

(6) In whatever terms the insurance cover to be provided in respect of fire and other risks is expressed the landlord shall insure the building in the full cost of rebuilding together with agents and surveyors fees and costs of demolition and making due allowance for inflation during the rebuilding period.

Offenees

20.—(1) If any person without reasonable excuse fails to perform any duty imposed on him by this Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000.

(2) Where an offence under this Schedule which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.

(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, sub-paragraph (2) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

Exceptions

21. This Schedule does not apply to service charges payable by the tenant of a flat the rent of which is registered under Part IV of the 1977 Act.

22. This Schedule does not apply where the service charges payable by the tenant for any service charge year are less than £75 in Greater London and £50 elsewhere, or where the building consists of four or less flats.

23. Only paragraphs 10 and 11 shall apply to service charges payable to an association or company the membership of which is wholly or mainly restricted to persons who are tenants in the same block of flats.

Definitions

24. A flat is a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, which—

(a) forms part of a building;
(b) is divided horizontally from some other part of that building; and
(c) is constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling and is occupied wholly or mainly as a private dwelling.

25.—(1) A qualified accountant is a person qualified for the purposes of paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 14, but subject to sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) None of the following is a qualified accountant—

(a) a body corporate, except a Scottish firm;
(b) an officer or employee of the landlord or, where the landlord is a company, of a company which is the landlord's holding company or subsidiary (within the meaning of section 154 of the Companies Act 1948) or a subsidiary of the landlord's holding company; and
(c) a person who is a partner or employee of any such officer or employee.

26. "Landlord" includes any person who has a right to enforce payment of a service charge and, in relation to a flat occupied by a tenant under a right conferred by an enactment, also includes the person who, apart from that right, would be entitled to possession of the flat.

27. "Tenant" includes a person occupying a flat under a right conferred by an enactment, and, where the whole or any part of the flat is sublet shall except for the purpose of paragraphs 5 and 6 where appropriate include also the sub-tenant.

28. Service charge year is the period defined within the lease or failing such a definition shall be the period 1st January to 31st December in every year.

29. A "long lease" is a tenancy granted for a term of years certain exceeding twenty one years, whether or not the tenancy is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry forfeiture or otherwise.

30.—(1) A recognised tenants' association is an association of tenants of flats in a building where not less than 50 per cent. of the flats have been let on long leases and where at


least 60 per cent, of the tenants of such let flats are members of the association.

(2)If an association does not meet the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) they can be a recognised tenants' association if the landlord agrees in writing to treat them as such.

(3) Where an association satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above, the secretary shall give written notice to the landlord together with a list of members. Annually there after the secretary shall supply the landlord with a current list of members to prove that the association continues to satisfy the requirements.

31. The county court or the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to the landlord certifying that a tenants' association shall be recognised notwithstanding that it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 28 and such certificate shall remain valid until upon an application made by the landlord or the association or any tenant the county court or the Secretary of State shall cancel the same.'.

Government amendments 96 to 105.

Mr. Scott: These amendments concern the privately rented sector, which has been in substantial decline since the turn of the century. I recognise the efforts that my right hon. and hon. Friends are making to revive it. I draw their attention to the largest block of flats in Europe, just down the river from this House—Dolphin Square. About 10 years ago it was bought by the Westminster city council, by the then chairman of the finance committee, who is now a Government Whip. Since then it has been run in the interests of the tenants on a nonprofit-making basis. It is exemplary in demonstrating how rented accommodation can be provided, with good facilities, at reasonable rent and wholly managed in the interests of the tenants. In London we should manage all our rented property as much in line with the management of Dolphin Square as we can. That may not be possible to achieve at once. Our amendments which were designed to achieve it have not been selected. We may have to pursue the narrower aim in this amendment and the Government amendments, and deal at this time only with service charges.
Service charges are a growing problem for those who live in central London. People here are more acutely aware of the problem than in other parts of the country. They are in competition with diplomats, business men, tourists and other short-stay visitors. However, all who live in rented accommodation face the problem in differing degrees.
Certainly I find in my constituency—and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooks), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and Fulham (Mr. Stevens) find it, too—that service charges are increasingly becoming a subject of abuse and exploitation and arouse fear and trepidation in those who are subject to them.
Government amendment No. 96 seeks to provide some comfort to those who are subject to service charges. I accept that it sets out terms which good landlords will follow. It provides a set of rules for good practice. But most of the good landlords in my constituency and elsewhere in inner London will already be following those rules of practice and will be trying to meet the aims and wishes of their tenants and the bad landlords will be able to follow the letter of the Government amendment and yet ignore all the wishes of their tenants. Those landlords will be able to tell their tenants that they intend to incur certain expenditure and they will be able to ignore any objections by tenants and go ahead with the work. There will be nothing that the law can do to prevent that. We must go further.
In order to persuade the House of my argument, I should explain how the service charge system is being exploited. In the regulated rented sector, services charges are non-variable and claims are made for services that are not provided. It is difficult for tenants to challenge that. In the first place, once a service charge has been fixed for services that are not provided, tenants cannot go back to the rent officer and challenge the charge without fear that he may alter the rent as well as the service charge. Tenants choose to sit quietly and accept that porters or central heating are not provided or lifts are not in action rather than go back to the rent officer and face another battle with the landlord who may say that the services are out of action temporarily, but in any case he wants an increased rent.
In the leasehold sector, the area of the market where long leases have been sold to tenants who have spent a substantial capital sum—perhaps their retirement savings—so that they may


live in central London for a long time, service charges are increased substantially.
Once landlords have sold long leases, they receive a small ground rent, but have no other substantial financial interest in the block. In my experience, one of two things happens. Either the landlord neglects the block and it runs down and deteriorates, or he spends the tenants' money in tarting up the block and sells it to someone else at a profit, using the money that tenants have been compelled to pay. Tenants in my constituency are paying a service charge, but at the end of the year are asked to pay £2,000 or £3,000 on demand for expenditure that the landlord has incurred and which they have no right to challenge.
There are some landlords, both in the rented and the leasehold sector, who have behaved illegally and are fiddling service charges. I am not dealing with them, because if they behave illegally it ought to be possible to catch them. But even those who operate within the law are able to manipulate service charges in order to increase the profitability of their blocks, which is outside the original purpose of service charges.

Mr. Roger Moate: At some stage, will my hon. Friend relate the Government amendments to the situation he has described? I understand that it would be possible under the Government amendments for those charges to be challenged in court if they were thought to be unreasonable. Presumably there would be a statutory right of consultation before the work was done. Will he explain why the Government amendments would not deal satisfactorily with the situation he has described? It is a matter of great importance to many hon. Members.

Mr. Scott: The difference between my amendments and the Government's amendments is precisely on that point. It is a question whether it is possible to challenge expenditure before it takes place, or whether it is accepted that the expenditure takes place and that once the money has been spent by the landlord a person can go to the county court and say that it is not reasonable. The burden

of proof changes once the money has been spent. A tenant, or a tenant on behalf of a residents' association, then has to go to court and say that that expenditure was not reasonably incurred, whereas if there had to be some consultation beforehand the balance would be more in favour of the tenant. Anyone who knows what is happening in central London at present will know that the balance should be redressed in favour of the tenant.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem to which he refers, and about which I give him complete support, arises no less harshly for the weekly tenant when the majority of the flats in a block have been purchased by a tenant co-operative, leaving those tenants with long leases, and perhaps half a dozen tenants who prefer to remain as weekly tenants? They then find that their neighbours put up service charges to increase the value of the property, without spending the money on improving the flats of the weekly tenants. In due course, the weekly tenants are forced out and their neighbours gain a profit in the same way as would have been the case had all the costs been incurred by a 100 per cent. share landlord.

Mr. Scott: That is another aspect of the tangle into which we have fallen, and the Government amendments do little to extricate us from it.
There is a point at which landlords in these blocks who are able to increase service charges without any real constraints are able to persuade some people to vacate their flats, create voids, and thus increase the saleable value of the property and increase their profitability.
Amendment No. 116 relates to those flats within the regulated rent sector. In this amendment we ask that when a rent officer requests a hearing over a rent and an associated non-variable service charge, the tenants who live in the property should have two weeks' notice of the figures of expenditure that the landlord wants to incorporate into the service charge. At present they go to a hearing and are presented with figures. There is no period during which they can prepare their defence against the claims that are made by the landlord. A fornight's notice


of claims should be a minimum requirement so that tenants can contest the landlord's claims for service charges which he says he wishes to claim, and the service that he says he has provided and will provide in the coming months and year.
I turn now to the question of flats that have been sold off on long leases. In ascending order of importance, amendment No. 94 asks four things. First, it asks that the insurance of these blocks should be subject every five years to competitive quotation. A number of the blocks in central London have built into the lease a rule that the insurance of the block should be placed through some sort of agent of the landlord, and that is not subject to competitive quotation. There is a very large block in my constituency whose tenants have themselves obtained competitive quotes from reputable Lloyds brokers, and they are less than 50 per cent of the price they are having to pay under the terms of their lease in order to insure the block. To ask that once every five years competitive quotes should have to be obtained is a minimal protection for those people against exploitation.
Secondly, the amendment asks that where the ownership of a block of flats is vested in a company outside the United Kingdom—and increasingly the blocks in my constituency and elsewhere in central London are being sold off to companies which have their bases in Liechtenstein. Monte Carlo, Saudi Arabia, and so on, and are able to avoid their responsibility for fulfilling the landlord's side of the covenant between landlord and tenant—that company should have to appoint by deed a company operating under United Kingdom law which would have to fulfil the landlord's covenant and be responsible under our laws to do so.
Thirdly, where landlords are able—and this Bill will make it easier for them to do so—to collect sinking or reserve funds against major expenditure to be incurred in the future on such things as the replacement of the lifts or the repair of the boilers, that money should be paid to a trustee independent of the landlord or the tenant. We should not have the sort of position that arose recently in a block of flats in Marylebone, where the tenants were asked to pay for substantial capital expenditure of that sort, the block was then sold, the funds they had subscribed

were mysteriously whisked away to some foreign part, and they were then asked to pay that money again. They were able to contest the matter successfully in the court, but they should not have been placed in that position in the first place. The money should have been protected, and so should the position of tenants who are asked to pay in advance for repairs and who either die or move out of the block. That money ought to be paid and protected on a trustee basis.
But the essential element in amendment No. 94 is that, when substantial expenditure in a block of flats is to be incurred, it is not good enough to say that the tenants can challenge that after the expenditure has taken place and plead in the county court that it was not reasonable. Why on earth should they not be able to be consulted before the expenditure takes place? I know that there are difficult tenants. There is also an increasing number of difficult landlords in central London who exploit these situations. Why should it not be possible to have a system of simple arbitration—to have someone appointed by the Institute of Arbitrators or any other body that the Government wish to appoint? I do not mind as long as it happens quickly, cleanly and simply.
If one cannot get the landlord and the tenant to agree on a major item of expenditure, there should be a case for arbitration. Tenants would quickly realise that the arbitrators would confirm any expenditure that was reasonable, and would quickly cease to challenge items of expenditure that had to be carried out in order to maintain the condition and quality of the block. It would stop the position that we have in several blocks in central London, where expenditure on the boilers, the lifts and the central plant of the block is ignored while the landlord spends money on tarting up the block and putting in pile carpets and mirrors round the reception area so that vacant flats can be sold at much higher prices. That is the sort of abuse that we are trying to stop, and I cannot imagine why the Government should not be seeking to support us in these proposals.

Mr, Douglas-Mann: I have been listening with great interest and very great sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's


speech, but there is one point that I cannot find in his amendment which I thought might have been provided. I refer to some limitation on the level of managing agents' charges, which are frequently set by landlords at 10, 15 or 20 per cent. above the level of expenditure. Have I missed that in the hon. Gentleman's amendments, or is there any provision to prevent managing agents from charging sums vastly in excess of an appropriate rate?

Mr. Scott: Only the fact that the tenants' association should have some say in who is appointed as the managing agent. That seems to me to be an important advance.
Whatever these amendments may achieve, I do not believe that we will reach a satisfactory solution to the question of the large blocks in central London until there is a right to buy along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) or some other formula that will achieve the Dolphin Square solution. But, in the absence of such a scheme, our amendment will achieve a substantial improvement in the lot of private tenants.
Of course there are technical difficulties and improvements could be made to the amendments in another place if the Government accept in principle that they want to achieve the sort of advance that I have spoken about. On behalf of my constituents and on behalf of other private tenants in central London, I beg the Government to accept these amendments as representing a substantial improvement in the situation of those tenants.
When Mr. Herbert Morrison was chairman of the London Labour Party he threatened to build the Conservative Party out of London by building council houses. To an extent, he achieved that and I am profoundly worried that, unless something is done to protect the position of private tenants in central London, the policies of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government may do more to build the Conservative Party out of central London than Herbert Morrison ever did.

Mr. Tilley: The warning given by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) to the Government is that, by this Bill, they may be evicting the Conservative voters

out of central London. I hope that they do not do what was done in response to the electoral effect of the council house building of Herbert Morrison and his successors which was merely to alter the boundaries so that the old LCC boundaries became the GLC boundaries and gave the Conservatives a chance of gaining control in County Hall.
I do not think that any hon. Member would suggest that service charges are not an important part of the payments that have to be made by flat dwellers, particularly in inner London, or that any of us is an expert on service charges unless we happen to be lawyers who were involved in such matters day to day before becoming Members of the House.
It is no surprise to me, nor do I believe it to be a surprise to the House, that the two major amendments tabled by the "Gang of Five ", the alleged inner London Tory rebels, were written by other organisations. That is no discredit to those hon. Members, and indeed I was only too happy to add my name to amendment No. 116, which, as hon. Members will be aware, was composed and put forward to many hon. Members by the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights.
Before coming to that matter, I wish to speak briefly to the slightly more controversial amendment No. 94 which was, I am sure, drafted by Holding and Man agement Ltd which is a maintainee trustee company for a large number of flats in London and other parts of England. The amendment is pages long. We should have been glad for an amendment of such length in Committee to enable us to discuss these matters in the required detail. The amendment contains more words than the report prepared by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) for destroying the Inner London Education Authority—the only other great document to which the hon. Member has attached his name recently.
11pm
In some ways the amendment is an improvement. However, the House should be uneasy about it if only because it is drafted by a maintenance trustee company which clearly has an interest. Parts of the amendment are deliberately aimed at extending the influence of such companies. It states that where there is a


maintenance trustee it must be appointed as an arbitrator. Legislation which is designed to extend the business of a type of company might be undesirable. In the view of some solicitors representing private tenants, the company errs on the side of landlords and a director of the company has acquired the freehold of a block.
We must ensure that the obligations enshrined in the amendment are included in the Bill, but there are doubts about whether a company of that type should be imposed on the tenants. There is no reason why tenants should not create a maintenance company if they wish. Their interests could be better served by having a direct relationship with the landlord.
I hope that the House will be cautious about accepting amendments drafted by people who have a clear interest. With that caveat, I believe that amendment No. 94 represents an improvement.
Because only five Conservative rebels attached their names to amendment No. 116, I was able to add mine as its sixth supporter. The amendment was drafted not by hon. Members but by the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights. That organisation, which is London based, has done an immense amount of good in the last few weeks by alerting private tenants to the problems created by the Bill. The actions of the campaign have not met with complete approval by the Government Front Bench. I warn Government Back Benchers who support the amendment about the views of their ministerial guides and mentors on the organisation which they so bravely support.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
 I hope that the Johnny-come-lately organisation that is exploiting the fears of tenants—the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights—can be put in its proper context, because it took no interest in this matter until it decided to take a political view on the Bill. 
I presume that nobody here is being accused of taking a political view. The Under-Secretary went on to say:
 It began most of its activities on shortholds and then, by the way, suddenly found—rather like the Poujadistes—that it could perhaps get monetary support and applause on service charges.
He continued:
 I was somewhat irritated about the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights only because I have received letters from old ladies in my

constituency who are scared to death by the lying propaganda of that organisation. I shall not forgive anybody "—
he did not in that remark exclude even his right hon. and hon. Friends—
 for scaring my constituents with total lies. It is time that organisation learnt that if it makes a point reasonably, sensibly and honestly, people will take note of it."—[Official Report. Standing Committee F, 29 April 1980; cc. 2509–14.]
Those were the remarks of a junior Minister about that organisation. It is stretching the imagination of the House to see the hon. Member for Chelsea and his colleagues in rebellion as Poujadistes. We could think of no way in which they would resemble populist French shopkeepers. But the point is made, and the warning is there.
I wish to make it clear that, while we accept most of amendment No. 94 because it improves the Bill, we are not in any way convinced that it is an improvement on the present position. We fully support amendment No. 116 because we were convinced long before Conservative Members that the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights had the matter right. [Interruption.] I am not trying to make a party political point. It is important to put the matter in context.
We have been treated in the press to reports of the great rebellion. The Sunday Times said:
 Tory backbenchers rebel at raw deal for tenants.
The Financial Times said:
 Backbenchers make move to amend Housing Bill.
The Sunday Times article referred to the hon. Member for Chelsea by name not even by the title of "Mister", which may be a breach of privilege in the House—when it said:
 Scott lists points which will make the life of the private tenant more difficult. The review period for fair rents is being reduced from three years to two, so that rents will rise more rapidly.
I am sure that hon. Members will remember how the issues of fair rent phasing, which could have been raised earlier tonight under the guillotine, were so hotly contested by the inner London Tory rebels.
An article in the Financial Times by Elinor Goodman reads:
 Five Tory MPs for London constituencies are making a last-minute bid today to persuade the Government to amend the Housing Bill.


They want the particular problems of inner urban areas to be taken into account.
At the end of a campaign to change the Bill more radically, the deputation is likely to concentrate today on the more limited aim of improving control private tenants and leaseholders have over their service charges.
How right was that report about the limited aim at the end of a campaign of which the five Members and their tenants and constituents have not seen the beginning.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), rightly described the alleged Poujadistes as "Johnny-come-latelys". There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who is aware of the problems that the Bill will create for tenants in inner London that, important though service charges may be—and no one would detract from that—they pale into insignificance beside the two issues of security of tenure and rent levels.
If the "Gang of Five" of inner London rebels did not make a single—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: More clichés.

Mr. Tilley: It is not more clichés; it is the same one.

Mr. Hogg: That does not make it any better.

Mr. Tilley: If they did not raise a peep on those issues, they cannot claim in any way to be representing the problems that their constituents, who are private tenants, will have to face. They say fine words in the constituencies.
I am ready to speak from the local press. The Paddington Mercury quotes the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). We have not heard it here. All I am asking is that what is said at meetings should be repeated here, but we have not heard a word of it. The hon. Member for Paddington is quoted as saying that
 he found himself in a ' state of rebellion ' against the Government over certain aspects of the Bill.
So far it has been a very quiet rebellion.
 ' Over the years I have heard nobody who has anything to say in favour ' "—

Mr. John Wheeler: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I will commence the state of rebellion from this side of the House.

Mr. Tilley: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would rise to the provocation. He clearly has. The quotation goes on:
 ' Over the years I have heard nobody who has anything to say in favour of keeping the private rented sector at all ', he said ' It is dying and the sooner it goes the better '.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that is a misquotation? I realise that being misquoted is the lowest form of hindsight, but it is sometimes necessary. Will he say whether that is what he believes and whether he will vote on the basis of that statement not only on this amendment, but on the Bill as a whole? Otherwise he will stand accused of saying one thing to his constituents and to the local press and another in this House and of voting in another way.
I am still on the matter of service charges, although I admit that I have had to broaden the issue somewhat to make my point. There used to be another "Gang of Five". In January 1979 the West London Observer, under the heading
 Charter wanted for private tenants ",
reported:
 Five local Tory MPs have launched a campaign to obtain a charter for private tenants. It suggests setting up landlord-tenant courts, giving tenants' associations the right to buy ".
I know that the hon. Member for Chelsea complained that his "Dolphin Square" amendment was not called. The article goes on to list seven points:


" 1. Landlord-Tenant Courts: …
2. Recognition of Tenants' Associations: …
3. Right of Purchase by Tenants' Associations: …
4. Extension of Security of Tenure: …
5. Shortholds: …
6. Tax incentives on lettings: …
7. Tax Credit Scheme ".

The membership has changed slightly. The inner core—the hon. Members for St. Marylebone, Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Chelsea—is still there. They have been added to in the new group by the hon. Members for Paddington and Fulham (Mr. Stevens). The two who have left are the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is now a Whip—I am not asking him to leap to the defence of himself or the other members—and the hon. Member for Hampstead.
Of those seven items, which they called a charter for private tenants in order to get publicity, only one—shorthold—which


we believe will be harmful to private tenants, has been put into practice by the Department of the Environment in which the hon. Member for Hampstead is a Minister. The other six items have been forgotten.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, being one of six main signatories to an amendment being debated, to devote the major part of his speech to attacking the other five signatories?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The content of an hon. Member's speech is not a matter for the Chair as long as it is in order.

Mr. Tilley: It may bring some comfort to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) if I say that I am coming to the end of my remarks. I did not speak at great length on amendment No. 116 because it was explained so well by the hon. Member for Chelsea. I shall be delighted, like my hon. Friends, to support the amendment on that basis.
11.15 pm
I was giving the House some indication of the background to the situation and putting in context the alleged rebellion by Conservative Back Benchers in support of private tenants' rights. I should like to repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the point I have already made, that issues affecting private tenants in inner London are security and rents. On those issues there has not been a pipsqueak of rebellion by Conservative Members. We are grateful for some small sign of dissatisfaction on service charges. That will have our support in the Lobbies as soon as the opportunity arises.

Mr. Wheeler: I am glad to return to the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). He presented the case for the amendment very well. I entirely support it. I believe that several of my hon. Friends will also support it.
I shall be perfectly frank. Some aspects of the Bill cause a great deal of worry to the residents of inner London in particular. It is no exaggeration to say that many tenants, especially the elderly, in inner London are in a state of

fear. It behoves my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to say what they think will happen to the tenants of inner London—a truly unique place in the private rented sector.
The tenant in inner London competes for his home with companies that wish to rent property, with foreign nationals and with people who possess substantial sums of money to pay the ever increasing rents. Many aspects of the Bill are worrying. I wish that we could deal with them in the House, but that is not possible. I disapprove of the reduction of the rent reviews from three years to two years. That may be appropriate in some parts of the country, but it is not in London.
Rents in London are rising. The rent on the average flat in my constituency is between £2,000 and £2,500 a year. On top of that figure, there will be rates of £600 or £700 and water rates of about £100. Additionally, there is the problem of the service charge, which may amount to between £1,000 and £1,500. How can ordinary British people live and work in the heart of their capital and belong to it when these are the charges and costs that devolve upon them?
The amendment is intended to bring back a sense of fairness to people living in the capital. I refer, in particular, to a new addition—the provisions for landlords to produce an estimate or expenditure summary and to consult on the estimate. That is the key to the amendment. Nothing can be more important to those living in the great mansion blocks of inner London. In my constituency, I can point to an instance of landlords proposing to spend £2 million without any consultation with the tenants of the block. One can imagine the fear that prevails among the elderly residents of that block.
The amendment improves substantially the Government's own schedule. Those of us who believe in it urge the Government to accept the amendment in the names of Members for inner London constituencies.
We live with this problem on a daily basis. We know the fear and concern that exist in the community. We fear greatly that unless there is recognition of this problem and its uniqueness, the British who live in inner London will be driven out of inner London.
I could go on about other aspects of this matter, but I shall not do so because other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate in its closing moments. I simply say that in the near future, if there is to be any honest recognition of the problems of the private rented sector in inner London, that recognition must come through special legislation tailor-made for the inner London tenant. It is long overdue. That is the answer.
In addition, we must recognise that most people now wish to own their home, in one of the many forms available to them. Perhaps the co-operative is the answer. We have heard the illustration of that in Dolphin Square. That was a co-operative created by the Westminster city council. That council expresses its concern about what will happen to its residents arising from the Bill.
But that is for the future—for the near future, one hopes. Tonight this House is asked to support a new schedule. I commend that schedule to the House. I believe it will be a significant contribution to the well-being of the tenants of inner London. I hope that the Government Front Bench will accept it.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile it with his support for the other shorthold measures in the Bill.
Until 1957, I was a rent-controlled tenant of a flat in Marylebone, just adjoining the hon. Gentleman's constituency, until I was driven out by the Rent Act 1957. The flat was subsequently sold. When I last heard about it, it had changed hands for about £60,000. That was a consequence of the Rent Act 1957. However, I shall refrain from pursuing that element of the issue. I want to concentrate on the two new schedules.
I support both of the new schedules. I support amendment No. 116 most enthusiastically, because, from trying to assist tenants before rent officers and rent assessment committees, I know how easy it is for the landlord to contend that services have been or will be provided, or will be provided to a better standard, and how difficult it is for the tenant, with the very limited support of the legal aid that is available under the green form

scheme, to challenge the assessments presented by the landlord.
I know how inadequate is the protection now provided for tenants when a service charge is presented by alleged professionals before a rent officer or rent assessment committee. The tenant has a very inadequate opportunity to test the validity of the estimates or to ensure that the services continue to be provided. It is very difficult to get a mandatory injunction under section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 and to ensure that landlords continue to maintain the premises in accordance with the standards which they have said they would maintain. Before the rent officer, it is virtually impossible.
I dissent from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) in that I support quite enthusiastically amendment No. 94. When I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), I was unaware of the point which my hon. Friend has made about the origins of the drafting of the amendment. As a lawyer it surprised me that there was no provision in it to restrict the amount that could be charged by a managing agent to a certain percentage of the level of costs incurred. That is a serious omission. However, the proposed schedule is a great improvement when compared with the provisions in the Bill. It could be further improved.
I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and I have not carried out a detailed textual comparison of the provisions of schedule 17 with section 124 and schedule 12 of the Housing Act 1974. Those provisions in the 1974 Act have been a tremendous advantage to the tenants of residential flats in London. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), was responsible for initiating amendments to that legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I supported him, and the amendments were carried despite the opposition of the Government of the day. The hon. Gentleman seems to have resiled slightly from the enthusiasm for reform of those days.
I know from the experience of my professional colleagues, my partners, the extent to which the tenants of private


residential flats in London, especially those who have bought their leases, are finding that their landlords are carrying out improvements to the property at their expense with a view to selling the flats at much higher prices.
I am aware of many abuses, to some of which the hon. Member for Chelsea referred—for example, the appropriation of interest on reserve funds, the lack of control over the manner in which these funds are invested and the lack of means of ensuring that the funds are kept secure.
One of the features of the schedule that interests me is the section on covenants and conditions to be implied in leases. If the amendment is not carried—I hope that it is, and I shall be supporting it—I hope that in the near future we shall have a Bill—preferably a Government measure, but failing that an all-party Private Member's Bill—to provide for standard covenants and conditions to be implied in leases.
The drafting of many of the leases on flats in London and elsewhere has improved over the years in the interests of the landlords. In many instances, bad drafting was a great disadvantage to the tenant. In many instances, there is no way in which a tenant who leases a a flat in a block can effectively compel the undertaking of repairing obligations if the landlord disappears, goes into liquidation or fails to comply. In those circumstances, the only people against whom the obligations can be enforced are other lessees.
It is important in the interests of any lessee in a block of flats that he should in the last resort be able to compel the performance of repairing obligations by other lessees. That can be done only by statute. Well-drafted leases have been coming into force only in recent years. That is something that needs to be provided for in future, and the schedule deals with it in a somewhat preliminary form. It is however, a good start
I strongly support the hon. Member for Chelsea in his plea for a greater statutory obligation to consult. I hope that the Government find it possible to accept that obligations of the sort contained in the schedule should be enforceable by statute, and that they can go much further than the existing provisions

in the Bill. I refer especially to the passage about offences. As I understand it, there were no provisions for penalties in the 1974 Act. The introduction of penalties in schedule 17 is welcome. However, the penalty of £200 is trifling in comparison with the profit to be gained by ignoring the provisions. I think that the Minister will accept that the penalties are inadequate, and that they should be increased.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central pointed out, the amendment was drafted in a manner that was not wholly disinterested. That may account for some of the omissions. However, I welcome the amendment. It improves the Bill. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will support both amendments.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), and I congratulate him on the amendments. It is some time since Members of Parliament for inner London constituencies drew the attention of the House to the problem of service charges and the House made an attempt to deal with the issue some years ago. However, great distrust still exists between tenants and landlords. The law clearly needs to be strengthened in favour of the tenants.
An acute social problem is developing not only in inner London but in Greater London. Hundreds of mansion blocks, many of them at least 40 years old, and others that are up to 100 years old, are falling into decay. In some cases, the decay is quite rapid. In the centre of London—particularly in Kensington—the problem is different. Overseas speculators are trying to acquire the freeholds of such blocks, with the intention of completely changing their characters. They wish to turn them over to luxury service lettings and so on. In such blocks, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is in need of urgent attention.
A social problem affects the whole of our society. Blocks are becoming run down. A great deal of money will be needed if they are to remain habitable: we cannot allow London to become lined with mansion slums. The money could come from the landlord. However, in 99 cases out of 100, the landlord is sickened


by years of rent control. He does not have the wherewithal to carry out the necessary maintenance. The money could be obtained from ratepayers or taxpayers. However, that solution is unlikely to commend itself to hon. Members on either side of the House. Therefore, the money will have to come from the tenants. But they will not pay the necessary sums of money if we continue to treat them as we do.
It is important that tenants should have the right to challenge proposals affecting the block in which they live, particularly if large items of capital expenditure are involved. They should have the right to investigate the landlord's policy, and to satisfy themselves that they are getting a fair deal. Many landlords are completely out of touch with their tenants. Some deal with their tenants through an agent; consequently there is a very bad relationship. Even if the landlord makes a reasonable proposal, the tenants do not believe that it is fair. The landlord may be openly accused of paying a builder too much money in order to get kick-backs from him at the tenant's expense. There may sometimes be truth in such allegations. However, the tenants have no means of resassuring themselves as to the facts of the matter.
The tenants may believe that the landlord is deliberately following a policy of improving the appearance of the block at the expense of his sitting tenants. When vacancies arise he can then get a higher price for the flats. He might be aiming to deceive people into believing that the general character of the block is better than it is. I could give other examples, but I shall not do so as other hon. Members wish to speak.
We must tackle the intense distrust that exists between tenant and landlord. Such distrust cannot be put right by encouraging the parties to go to court. That would appear to be the intention behind the Government's amendments. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise the existence of this problem, but I do not believe that the proposals they have made in the Bill go nearly far enough. Of course, allowing the tenants' association to purchase the block is by far the most satisfactory outcome, and this is what we must aim for in the end.

But for the present at least the tenants must be assured of receiving a fair deal.
The Minister will probably say that my hon. Friend's amendments are defective in certain respects, and indeed that may be so. But their intention is right, and something must be done. Therefore, I hope that we shall get a forthcoming response from the Minister. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea thinks it necessary to divide the House, I shall certainly support him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to speak until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir. B. Rhys Williams). He said that some of the landlords cannot afford to stop mansions from deteriorating. My mind goes back over the years to the Freshwater group, and Mr. Stern who went broke to the tune of £380 million. He then passed over his house, worth about £250,000, to his wife. He also passed over his four cars. Now he is living in the lap of luxury.
That is just one case. Dare I mention the late Sir Eric Miller, who had hon. Members from both sides of the House as directors of his company? They were all doing very nicely, thank you. This sort of thing has been going on for years. Both sides of the House have been involved, and they have allowed it to continue. Those whom I have mentioned have been given knighthoods, peerages, and have become great men.
I have been a Member of this House long enough to know that the Tory Party believes that if someone makes a lot of profit he is very good and very successful. It does not matter how one makes that profit, just as long as one makes it. Only last week we heard that the banks were making hundreds of millions of pounds in profits. Today we heard that one of the oil companies has made £750 million. What does the Tory Party want? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get to the point."] I am coming to the point.
These landlords obviously want to make a big profit, and they are not concerned if they rook the tenants. They have been rooking them for years. The only difference is that, whereas it used to be tenants in the East End of London and the poorer areas who were rooked, it is now becoming prevalent for tenants


in Chelsea and Kensington to be rooked, and the well-to-do are finding it difficult to pay their £40 a week, with £20 on top of that. Some of the workers in my area would like to see a salary of £60 a week, let alone paying it in rent and service charges.
The hon. Member for Kensington mentioned the number of foreigners coming here. That is true. Plenty of Arabs come and they are allowed to buy up anything and everything. Governments of both parties have allowed that.
The establishment of phoney companies in places such as Liechtenstein has been mentioned. But was it not this Government who allowed export of capital? Of course the Arabs find it very profitable to come in and make money at the expense of these tenants.
I therefore support these amendments. It is a pity that such proposals did not come sooner. However, I do not believe that the Government will accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea for reasons real or imaginary. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in favour of the amendment, but I doubt it. I believe that both Front Benches will renege. There are guilty consciences on both Front Benches. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press his amendment to a Division, and that some of my hon. Friends will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Stevens: I heartily support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott).
I am entranced if not mystified by the speeches in support of the amendment, particularly those by the hon. Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It was difficult to tell whether their support for our amendment was greater than their chagrin that it was our amendment and not theirs.
The part of the speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central that I liked best was when I believe that he included me in his description of a "Gang of Five". It gave me a spurious feeling of self-importance. I do not know whether "gang" is the appropriate word. Perhaps had the hon. Gentleman said "a West End club of five "it would have been more appropriate, but that would not have enabled him to say what rotten

rebels we were. We are quite good rebels when the time is appropriate. However, with every word from the Opposition Benches my blood cools a little. No doubt I shall be able to work myself up to take the apropriate action when we have heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister.
I wish to pursue only one point, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). All of us who represent inner London seats have come to recognise—and we have put this privately to Ministers—that the housing problems in inner London are quite different from and much more acute than those that affect other parts of the country. We argue that my right hon. Friend should consider legislation in a general way peculiar to inner London. I recognise that that is extremely difficult. It may seem to penalise others and give favoured treatment to a small number of boroughs. Although we claim that our problems are unique, hon. Members from other constituencies may well feel that they are not and that their constituencies have the same or worse difficulties. However, I ask that in the whole range of housing legislation my right hon. Friend should consider taking further powers. In a given local authority area, if certain criteria that he would lay down applied, he would be empowered to make regulations that enabled him to impose the provisions that we are arguing for. If those criteria were found to apply not only to the half a dozen inner London constituencies but in other parts of the country, those areas would also benefit from the provisions.
I do not want to get off the subject of the amendments, but there are many provisions in the Bill that, admirable and well intentioned though they may be, run the risk of causing damage by accident. The more that London Members study the Bill and the problems that will arise from it, the more that we find ourselves at odds with hon. Members on both sides, because they do not have the same problems in their constituencies that we face in London.
The Government will solve the overall housing problem in central London only if they accept that special legislation is necessary. I suggest that we should approach it by way of regulations so


that London does not appear to be specially favoured or specially penalised.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It would be churlish of me not to try to lower the blood pressure of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) and it may help the House if I explain the situation as the Government see it.
I shall try to pick up some of the points that have been made, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who moved the amendment in a caring way, that I have tried to arrange my thoughts in a fairly set pattern in order to assist him by explaining how the Government see the situation.
Before coming to the main case, there are two other points that I should deal with. First, I do not withdraw any words that I have used about the Campaign for Private Tenants' Rights, which has deliberately scared constituents in all parts of London by the lies that it has told about shorthold and service charges and by claiming that tenants will lose security of tenure. I pay no heed to that organisation.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) spoke about the fear of elderly tenants. He will agree that there is nothing in the legislation that is designed to harm the interests of private tenants. We are at one in our belief that the problems of a city such as London can be aided only by an increase in the number of private tenants and not by a continued rundown. One example of our determination in this matter, even in difficult times, was the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction a few weeks ago of substantial increases in the rent allowances available for private tenants in inner London.
It would be right for me to start my response to my hon. Friends by reminding the House of the extent of the Government's proposals. Little has been said about them. I take first what is in schedule 17. Where a tenant or a long leaseholder pays a variable service charge in respect of services or works for which he is contractually liable to pay and which the landlord is required to provide under the terms of the lease, the

basic protection that schedule 17 gives him is that he cannot be made to pay for what is not reasonable.
If a landlord has spent money and can be challenged on the reasonableness of that in the county court, his money will be at stake. He will have to satisfy the court that he had expended the money reasonably. The tenants' money will not be at risk, because the landlord will have spent his own money and if the court holds the expenditure to have been unreasonable, the landlord will not be able to reclaim it.
I assure my hon. Friend that two of the points that he raised are covered in the provisions that we are making. He spoke about the monstrous charges of up to 40 per cent, that are being made in some parts of London by so-called reputable managing agents. They would fall to be held to be reasonable by the county court. I cannot believe that any county court would hold a 40 per cent. management charge as reasonable. Equally, insurance premiums of the style that my hon. Friend has mentioned will also be held—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand that the landlord goes to the county court to recover his service charges. Is it for him to show that the service charges were reasonably levied; or is it for the tenant to show that they were unreasonable in extent? Where does the onus of proof lie?

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, will he tell the House if there is any guidance in the Bill—I cannot see any—for the county court as to the criterion of reasonableness? I know that the concept of reasonableness is very familiar to the common law, but there should be some guidelines written into the Bill for the county courts

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: With respect. I cannot give way. These are interventions on interventions, and I should like to answer the various points as I go along.
This is an important issue, and I shall deal with the points made by my hon, Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) because they are germane to what is being discussed

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: With respect, I wish to give the House a reasoned case as to why I believe that what the Government are doing is helpful to private tenants.
It is for the court to decide what is reasonable. If the court decided that a particular item had been provided to a very low standard, it could further decide that the landlord could not recover the full costs, or possibly any costs, in respect of that item. If the court decided that the work had been carried out to an unreasonably high standard—we all know that such cases exist—the court could limit the cost to be borne by the tenant to what was reasonable.
If the tenant is to consider challenging costs on these grounds, he must have access to information about the costs. We have considerably increased the rights of tenants to obtain information. We have removed the present limit of £80 a year below which a tenant does not have a right to a summary of costs. That is because a tenant might pay less than £80 one year, and more than £80 another, so he might not be able to get all the information he needs. We must remember that costs that are relevant to a service charge will not usually all be incurred in the year of the service charge. We have drafted our provisions with particular care to ensure that a tenant will always be able to obtain whatever information he needs.
We are examining matters to see whether there is more that we can do. We are considering whether we can legislate to require landlords to give 14 days notice, before rent officer consultations or rent assessment hearings, of the service charge expenditure on which their service charge is based. I have reason to hope that we shall be able to move an appropriate amendment to cover that point when the Bill gets to another place.
But it is fair to say that the summary of costs might turn out not to be sufficiently detailed, so we have provided a new right for the tenant to inspect the accounts and the receipts on which they were based. In addition to the overall limitation of costs to what is reasonable, there are now new and much stronger requirements for consultation on proposed works.

Mr. Scott: I am getting confused, because my hon. Friend interjected a remark which seemed to apply to the regulated rent sector, while his general themes seem to apply to the long leasehold service charges and the judgment as to what is reasonable. Will he clear that up, and in particular establish the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) raised about reasonableness? From whose point of view is the expenditure in the long leasehold case judged to be reasonable? The tenants want the block to be maintained in a reasonable condition for them to enjoy their tenancy. The landlord may very well say that he wants it to be maintained or developed in a reasonable way so that he can sell it all at a profit. From whose point of view is this judgment to be taken? Some sort of guidance must be given.

Mr. Finsberg: I shall cover later the points that my hon. Friend has made. I had already, from conversations I had with him, anticipated a couple of the points that he has mentioned.
I said that I thought the provisions had been misunderstood. I should like to point out that we have provided a new sanction for non-compliance. This is a very important sanction. There will be a prescribed sum for any block of flats, which will be either £25 for every flat in the block, or £500, whichever is the larger. If the landlord carries out works costing more than that amount without first consulting those who have to pay—unless there was an emergency—he will not be able to recover more than that amount, even if the actual cost was, in the event, reasonable. Whichever way one looks at it, I suggest to the House that this is a very effective weapon to place in the tenants' hands. If they are not consulted on major works, they will not have to pay the full cost. This is an entirely new provision.
Those are the basic provisions already in the Bill. The amendments that we have tabled will do two things. Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 clarify the requirements for consultation by making them explicit. At present, they are implicit, but I suggest that they have not been properly understood, particularly in the press. I promised in Committee that we would


come back to this. The landlord will have to provide two estimates and a notice describing the works to be carried out, and inviting observations on the works and the estimates. The notice must give the name and address in the United Kingdom of the persons to whom the observations must be sent, and must state the date by which they are to be received, allowing at least one month. This will be a very specific invitation to comment. The landlord must then have regard to any observations received from the tenants or a recognised tenants' association. There is nothing to prevent tenants from independently obtaining other estimates for the work and giving them to the landlord as part of their observations. If a landlord then chose to disregard the tenants' observations or any lower estimate that they had obtained, he would not be entitled to recover the costs unless he could show the court that he had acted reasonably in doing so. The landlord would therefore, I suggest, have to be very sure of his ground before committing himself to what might well be unjustified expenditure.
The second set of Government amendments gives greater rights to a recognised tenants' association by extending the right to obtain a summary of costs and inspect accounts to the secretary of the association, who might or might not be a tenant in the block, thus enabling him to act on behalf of other individual tenants.
We intend to table three further amendments in another place. The first will increase the maximum penalty for failure to provide a summary or permit inspection from the present £200 to £500.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) will perhaps recall that one of the reasons why the service charge provisions in the 1974 Act were defective was that his own Government were not prepared to cooperate in making them effective. He knows that as a fact, and that is why he voted with me in Committee.
While we are about it, we are making similar increases in the penalties in sections 121 and 122 of the 1974 Act. These are those provisions which require the managing agent or the person collecting the rents to disclose the landlord's identity. This has been a source of

worry. Section 122 requires a new landlord to inform the tenants of his name and address.
Secondly, we wish to avoid a possible loophole in the legislation which at present would enable a landlord to set up a tenants' management company which was not democratically controlled with the object of evading the provisions of the schedule altogether.
Thirdly, we propose to give rights to Rent Act tenants on non-variable registered rents to obtain information about the landlord's costs. They do not have such a right under the existing legislation nor under the Bill as drafted. This would put them in a stronger position to argue their case to the rent officer when the rent was being re-registered.
12 midnight
While these provisions add up to what, I suggest to the House, is a substantial package of rights for tenants and long leaseholders—which will apply regardless of the wide variety of terms which leases contain in practice—there are other points which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has mentioned that need further consideration.
He specifically mentioned overseas landlords who are a growing menace. He also specifically mentioned the insurance cartels and though I hope that I have partially satisfied him on that point that does not prevent us from having a further look at it. We shall look at advance payments and I shall have more to say on that in a moment. We shall also have a further look at the question of consultations in advance of fixing service charges. Again, there is more I wish to say about that.
What we have not tried to do in our schedule is to impose rigid requirements into every existing lease of a flat and I would like just to look at the effects of my hon. Friend's amendments. They would go much further by providing a set of rules for consultation, advance payments and sinking funds which would have to be followed in every block with more than four flats regardless of the circumstances or the terms of the leases.
Let me demonstrate to the House how this might operate from the point of view of a tenant. We start two months before the service charge year begins when the landlord must give me and every other


tenant of the block an itemised estimate based on last year's costs suitably adjusted. The estimate must—I repeat "must" because that is what the amendment says—include a contribution to a sinking fund for future works.
Many leases provide for sinking funds as a means of spreading costs of major works over a long period. That may well be sensible in many cases, but to oblige every long leaseholder to contribute to a sinking fund even where the lease does not provide for it would, I suggest, be unjustified. If there were no recognised tenants' association, in my block, the estimate must first have been approved by an independent trustee—let us call him Trustee A.
He is defined as a member of a professional body who is a specialist in the management of flats. He must be independent of the landlord but he would have been appointed by the landlord. That is where our first so-called trustee enters into it. He will be entitled to a I per cent. fee based upon the estimate and that fee would be paid for by the tenants.
If we have a recognised association the estimate would not have to be approved by the trustee, but the association must be consulted within one month. The association and the landlord pursue their best endeavours to agree the estimate. If they cannot reach agreement, the estimate must be referred to an independent trustee. He must be jointly agreed and if agreement cannot be reached the president of the Institute of Arbitrators is asked to appoint him.
Whether there is an association or not, all this has to be completed within one month of the beginning of the service charge year unless an extension is agreed. If an extension is not agreed, what happens? In the meantime, how much is to be paid in service charges?
Our proposals have been criticised because they do not prevent the landlord from obtaining advance payments. I should mention the recent High Court decision which has been much in the news, Frobisher versus Kiloran Trust, which ruled that under the existing legislation advance payments are not recoverable. That was not, however, the intention. We have drafted our proposals to make it clear that such payments are recoverable, but this will be the case only to the extent

that the lease makes specific provision for it. I still have to say, as I did in Committee, that we want to see evidence of leases which entitle landlords to demand vast advance payments with little or no justification. It is going too far the other way to provide that advance payments be obligatory in all cases. I am sure that landlords would welcome that, but I am not certain that my hon. Friends want that and I am pretty certain that tenants do not.
We have examined estimates for the year. What about the estimates for works? I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea because tenants can sometimes be landed with a situation without being consulted. We do not believe that my hon. Friend has the answer, nor do we believe that we have, yet.
Consultation will be needed for estimates for works, particularly where the cost exceeds the prescribed amount that we have provided in the Bill. If there is no association the landlord will have to provide me, as a tenant, and every tenant with two estimates for the work, together with his recommendation, giving 14 days to approve or object in writing to his recommendation. If fewer than 50 per cent. of us object, the work will be begun and the cost will be considered reasonable.
I said "us" but that might not be correct. The people who are being consulted are the long leaseholders. In the amended schedule the landlords have a vote for every flat that has not been sold on a long lease. Consequently, if fewer than half of the flats in my block have been sold, even if we all object to the estimate, the landlords will settle the matter and the cost will be considered reasonable.
I do not know whether that will be the end of the matter or if it is still intended that the court could rule after the work has been done that the work or the cost is not reasonable. This is a legal nightmare through which we must find a layman's way. We are still looking for that way.
What happens if I live in a block where most of the flats have been sold and more than 50 per cent. of us object to the proposal? The landlord will call us to a meeting within 28 days to discuss his


recommendations and alternative proposals. A hall might not be available, but we shall cope. However, someone must pay the hiring cost of the hall. In order to find a framework which is satisfactory in every detail, we must impose upon a substantial number of landlords and tenants who do not want the imposition a detailed provision which will be of less help than my hon. Friends want.
If we proceed for four weeks and then another month, the estimate will already be out of date. Estimates are not often held for more than a month. By the time one gets a fresh estimate the costs will have risen and the tenants will have to meet more of the cost. That is not the way which is of most help to the tenants.
Let us assume that the landlord has gone through the process and that the tenants have expressed their views. We must still take into account the views of individual tenants and those conveyed through an association. We must be aware that an association does not necessarily speak for all the tenants. We had a battle in Committee on the public sector tenants. It is wrong to say that only an association can speak for tenants in the private sector.
Then there is a compulsory sinking fund. That will be held in trust by a trustee—an independent body such as a bank or insurance company—and a charge will be made for services to be met by the tenants. Blocks of flats have arrangements agreed by all concerned. An independent maintenance trustee is a party to the arrangement.
I am not criticising, as the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) did rather cheaply, the fact that the organisation that prepared the amendment is wicked because it hopes that it might receive fees. He mentioned that one of its directors was connected with a property company. [Interruption.] Those were his words, and he does not deny that. It was not a helpful remark. I am entirely in favour of people entering into sensible, practical arrangements. I do not think that schemes that are bound to be extremely complicated should be imposed wholesale by statute. That is why I suggest to my hon. Friends that their proposals are not necessarily the best way

forward to achieve either what they want or what the Government want.
There are five major objections that I hope my hon. Friends will consider. The schedule would override all leases, however reasonable. It would be imposed on all blocks with more than four flats. It would make advance payments and sinking funds obligatory in all cases. It could prevent landlords from carrying out their contractual obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and I share many things, one of which is that neither of us is a lawyer. It would certainly provide a lawyers' paradise.
I received a letter today from a tenant in Portland Place, specifically drawing attention to three provisions in the schedule that the lady, as an ex-chairman of a tenants' association, feels would not be helpful. I am sure that those points have not occurred to my hon. Friend, as they are put so explicitly in the letter, making the position as problematical as I thought it might be. First, the landlords could be given a casting vote in situations where their interests seriously conflict with those of the tenants; secondly, the schedule restricts the right to scrutinise the accounts to an officer of the association, and therefore deprives long leaseholders who do not belong to the association of their rights; thirdly, it would perpetuate the life of incompetent and ill-qualified associations, which would readily become the tools of the landlord.
There would be no service charge legislation on the statute book if I had not battled for it in 1972. That is my first point, and it is a fact that is recognised by a substantial number of tenants in London. The one party from which I will take absolutely no stick is the Opposition party, who battled for years to deny private tenants any service charge rights—and it knows that that is true. I believe that, through our proposals and the proposals that will be introduced in another place, we are getting nearer to the best position for private tenants. I accept that we do not go as far as my hon. Friends would wish. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am battling through long conversations of Opposition Members who are listening. We have gone a long way. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that we shall consider further the points raised. If we can possibly find a


way to meet their points by the time the Bill reaches another place, we shall do so. I cannot promise them that we will be able to do so because it is not as easy as they would like or as I would like. We are very anxious to meet my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Scott: If in introducing the amendment I had been able to quote to my hon. Friend the letter that I have had from my constituents and others in London critical of the Bill, I could have done better than the one letter that he has quoted with some criticisms of the schedule that Back-Benchers have tabled.
On amendment No. 94, when the Bill gets to another place will my hon. Friend ensure that there is consultation in advance? I appreciate the specific commitment that he has given on amendment No. 116, but the essence of amendment No. 94, the heart of the matter, is that there will be not an informing of the tenants and then, if necessary, an ignoring of their point of view, but a giving of the right of real challenge and a sort of arbitration or referee before the landlord can continue with that expenditure. That seems to me to be the essence of the amendment.

Mr. Finsberg: I had hoped that I had said to my hon. Friend that we would give not only that point but the other points that he made the utmost care and consideration. We do not differ from my hon. Friend on the principle. I shall continue to have meetings with him and his colleagues to see whether we can find a way round this issue that will not only stand up in law, but will be satisfactory and will operate to the benefit of the only people in whom we are interested—the private tenants. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say that we will legislate. I cannot say to him something about which I am not certain. All I can say is that the best possible will is there. We shall continue to see what we can do to assist him. I cannot say more than that.
I hope that, in view of the series of points that I have made, which we shall examine afresh with my hon. Friend and his colleagues, he will not wish to press the amendment on this occasion.

Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, and in the light of the undertaking

given on the regulated sector, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 116 on the understanding that I might have a Division on amendment No. 94.

Mr. Tilley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of the signatories to amendment No. 116, I insist that we have a Division on it.

Mr. Kaufman: I should like to intervene for a moment. In doing so, I declare an interest. I am a leaseholder as a payer of service charges in central London and the honourary president of the Charlbert Court leaseholders' association in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) to whom I look for assistance in these matters and who I am pleased to see has signed amendment No. 116 without my having to lobby him. I do not vote against the hon. Gentleman, because I vote in my own constituency for an even better candidate, but the hon. Gentleman is elected to Parliament without my vote against him.
I do not want to intervene in any way in the merits of the argument; nor do I wish to attempt to drive any wedges between hon. Members on the Government's Back Benches and their Front Bench. What they will do will be for them to decide. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will not get irritable in the circumstances.

Mr. Scott: I should like to make clear what the right hon. Gentleman and his lion. Friends are doing. They are preventing us from accepting a specific and clear undertaking from the Government Front Bench on service charges in the regulated rent sector and having a Division on service charges in the long leasehold sector. That is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman speaking at this time.

Mr Kaufman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that is not my intention. Nothing that I say can prevent a Division. I understand parliamentary procedure as well as he does. I also know that many of my hon. Friends will not be here in another five minutes. The hon. Gentleman should know that if he is interested in a Division.
The hon. Gentleman has put down his amendments, but the House is custodian of the amendments as well as the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to


prevent a Division, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have two Divisions. When the Opposition tabled amendments in Committee on service charges, we received assurances from the Government that have not been fufilled on the Floor of the House. I am, therefore, not too trusting of assurances of what will happen in a matter of weeks when an inconvenient amendment has been disposed of and the Government are no longer concerned about what may happen in a Division on the Floor of the House.
The best way of ensuring that a Government fulfil their commitment to reconsider, as I found as a Minister, is through one's hon. Friends inserting an amendment into a Bill which, if found not to be entirely satisfactory, the Government have to replace with something better rather than leave the Bill in its present position. That was done to me. I found it salutary. I learnt the lesson.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am attempting to make a point that is in no way polemical about what happened to me when I tried to disregard what my hon. Friends were pressing upon me by offering an assurance which they regarded as going some way towards the objective but which was nevertheless unsatisfactory. My hon. Friends decided that the best way of making sure that the Front Bench fulfilled the commitment was by carrying the amendment and compelling the Government to accept an amendment and insert it into a Bill instead of the Government getting away

from the House into the freedom of the Department. I do not regard the assurances that the Under-Secretary of State has given as assurances that can be relied upon. Once this Bill gets away to the other place, it is outside our control. All that will remain is a guillotined hour on Lords amendments when the measure returns to this House.

Without attempting to intervene on the merits, except to declare my interest, I merely wish to state that if hon. Members on both sides of the House want something genuine done about service charges—as someone who pays those charges, I want something done—the best way is to write an amendment, even if it is technically defective, into the Bill. In that way, one will compel the Government to act and to fulfil their assurances.

Mr. Neil Thorne: As a chartered surveyor and a property owner on a modest scale, I must declare an interest. I should like to congratulate my Friends the Members for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) on the able manner in which they presented the amendment.

It being twenty-jour minutes past Twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 April] and the Resolution [yesterday], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 288.

Division No. 3181
AYES
[12.24 pm


Adams, Allen
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Alton, David
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tarn


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Davidson, Arthur


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Canavan, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Cant, R. B.
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cartwright, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Beith, A. J
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dempsey, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cohen, Stanley
Dobson, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dormand, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Douglas, Dick


Bradley, Tom
Cook, Robin F.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob
Duffy, A. E. P.




Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamond, James
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Eastham, Ken
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Leighton, Ronald
Ryman, John


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Sandelson, Neville


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Sever, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Ewing, Harry
Lltherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Faulds, Andrew
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Field, Frank
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCusker, H.
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McGuIre, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive


Freud, Clement
McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin
Siallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Graham, Ted
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Straw, Jack


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Tilley, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Heifer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Home Robertson, John
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Homewood, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Weetch, Ken


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
O'Neill, Martin
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Howells, Geraint
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Les
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whillock, William


Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Janner, Hon Greville
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prescott, John
Winnick, David


John, Brynmor
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Channon, Paul


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard
Churchill, W. S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bright, Graham
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Arnold, Tom
Brocklebank-Fowier, Christopher
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Hon Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brotherton, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Cope, John


Banks, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Come, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Sir Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Budgen, Nick
Dickens, Geoffrey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Burder, F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Butcher, John
Dover, Denshore


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Hon Adam
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blackburn, John
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)







Eggar, Timothy
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Lee, John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbalrn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant&Waterloo)
Rost. Peter


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard(Aldrldge-Br'hills)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Silvester, Fred


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Major, John
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul
Spence, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Glyn, Or Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Sproat, lain


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (HItchIn)


Gray, Hamiah
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Greenway, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Grieve, Percy
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove&Reddltch)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, John Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Thompson, Donald


Hampson, Or Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hannam, John
Moore, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyhealh)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Trippier, David


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Hawksley, Warren
Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Myles, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Henderson, Barry Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony Neubert, Michael
Waddinglon, David Wakeham, John


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nott, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (Perth&E Perthshire)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wall, Patrick


Hooson, Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waller, Gary


Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Walters, Dennis


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Kurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford)
Watson, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock Alexander
Wickenden, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Porter, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James
Williams, Dclwyn (Montgomery)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim



Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would it be for the convenience of the House if I put amendment Nos. 96 to 105 together formally?

Amendments made:

No. 96, in page 130, leave out lines 22 to 31 and insert—
' (3) A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of the tenants concerned or shall be displayed in the building so as to be likely to come to the notice of all those tenants and, if there is a recognised tenants' association for the building, the notice and copy of the estimates shall also be given to the secretary of the association.
(4) The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates and shall state the name and the address in the United Kingdom of the person to whom the observations may be sent and the date by which they are to be received.
(5) The date stated in the notice shall not be earlier than one month after the date on which it is given or displayed as required by subparagraph (3) above.
(6) The landlord shall have regard to any observations received in pursuance of the notice and, unless the works are urgently required, they shall not be begun earlier than the date specified in the notice.
(7) For the purposes of this paragraph the tenants concerned are all the landlord's tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant.

No. 97, in page 130, line 32, after "court" insert—
 if satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably.

No. 98, in page 130, line 33, leave out from ' requirements ' to end of line 35.

No. 99, in page 130, line 37, leave out ' the tenant ' and insert
' a tenant, or if there is a recognised tenants' association for the building, either its secretary or the tenant'.

No. 100, in page 130, line 40, after second ' payable ' insert ' by the tenant '.

No. 101, in page 131, line 1, after ' tenant ', insert ' or the secretary '.

No. 102, in page 131, line 7, after ' tenant ', insert ' or secretary '.

No. 103, in page 131, line 26, after ' tenant's ', insert ' or secretary's '.

No. 104, in page 131, line 34, after ' tenant ', insert ' or secretary '.

No. 105, in page 133, line 20, leave out ' 3(2) ' and insert ' 3 '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

It being after twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [16 April].

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

LAND USE (LEISURE PLOTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Copt.]

Mr. John Heddle: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise the subject of land speculation and the sale of leisure plots. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a situation which some might describe as scandalous. A few years ago that situation was confined largely to Kent, Surrey Sussex, Essex and the Home Counties in general. However, the problem has spread to the Midlands and has become of national concern. I know of places in Scotland, Cornwall and Yorkshire where such land speculation is prevalent.
The problem will multiply unless some positive planning solution is found. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) is in the Chamber. I am not sure which hat he is wearing. Perhaps he is wearing the hat that he usually wears in the Chamber, namely, that of a Government Whip. However, he may be wearing the hat of a Member of Parliament for a constituency that is affected by this type of land speculation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy first raised this issue in the House on 19 November 1975. He gave particular examples of the activities of leisure plot speculators who were then operating in Kent. I am also glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Faver-sham (Mr. Moate), for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolf-son) are in the Chamber. They all have similar examples of this obnoxious form of land speculation in their constituencies.
I am advised that even in the plushest pastures of West Sussex and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)—which he represents so assiduously—such speculation occurs. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed)—now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy—raised this issue in 1975, no constructive solutions have been found either by the previous Administration or by the present Government. As


the Government are reaching the end of the Committee stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill—part of which seeks to make planning procedures more positive and efficient, and to stamp out anomalies—the time would seem ripe to examine the problem again.
Land speculators buy up parcels of agricultural land. The land is usually grazing land that is deep in the heart of the countryside. It is usually of poor quality and is invariably in the green belt. They buy the land at almost knock-down agricultural prices. Depending on the area, they buy the land for between £500 and £2,000 an acre. In the guise of £100 companies that are controlled by nominee directors and that have £2 shares, the speculators parcel up the land into separate plots. The plots usually measure about 100ft by 40ft. In rare cases they may measure half an acre and in still rarer cases, an acre. They then advertise the plots in the "land for sale" columns of the popular weekly press at anything from £150 per plot to £1,000 a plot. Their profit margins are not too difficult to calculate, even at this rather late hour. At the minimum they are usually £3,000 an acre.
The poor buyer, usually a town dweller, to whom the prospect of a plot of land in the country is a chance of a lifetime, is left with a piece of land which, he is assured by carefully-worded advertisements and ambiguously-worded sales particulars, can be used only for gardening, leisure and related purposes, but which in reality is absolutely worthless and valueless. Because of planning restrictions, the land has no access by road and no sewerage or running water, and, because of its obscurity, the new owner is not even allowed to erect a fence to delineate his boundary.
The sales particulars read something like this:
 Cheap land (freehold). Your own leisure garden. Beat the falling pound and inflation. Invest in land for growing and leisure, from £195 full price. Plot sizes approximately 40ft. by 100ft. Larger plots, some with future building potential—
Whatever that may mean
 also available on easy terms.
Another set of particulars from which I shall quote, reads:

 The investment for everyone. If you are interested in securing your future with minimum trouble and maximum results, you should consider the case for land. Most of us save in a variety of ways ranging from the piggy bank via savings banks and unit trusts, silver and paintings, to the land and property investments of the big companies.
In these times of inflation, which are here to stay, the piggy bank is a poor loser, and the land the outright winner. The effect of inflation is continually to erode the value of money; anything of enduring value therefore becomes more expensive. Land values increase at substantially more than the inflation rate because of the additional effects of expanding population and subsequent pressure for demand for land. It was first said last century—
in fact I believe that it was said by Mark Twain—
 ' Put your money into land—they don't make it any more.' 
The sales particulars imply that possible future planning potential exists in this land.
The particulars go on to say, under the heading of "Speculation":
 It is not possible to see what the long-term possibilities for development are for any specific area of land. It is certain that large areas must be released for development soon, in order to overcome the housing shortage. … When permission for any type of development is given on any land, the value increases enormously. For example, a small building plot for one house … is at present (1973) worth about £5,000, depending on location. The same size plot without planning consent can be obtained … for about £300. Even without out development, however, the value still continues to increase as always.
Then, under the heading of "Growing for Profit", the pamphlet says:
 The land may be used for any form of agriculture or forestry—fir trees, fruit or decorative trees, shrubs, vines, market produce, such as your own fresh, chemical-free salads. Christmas trees, for example, require very little attention (a yearly visit with a small rotary cutter should suffice to clear between rows), can be planted at a density of 3,000 to 4,000 trees per acre and reach a saleable size in three to five years. Some varieties of strawberries have yielded about two tons per acre—very profitable, but they do need some attention.
One can see how the poor buyer can easily be short-changed by the activities of these speculators using the English language in its most elastic and persuasive form. But it is not simply the poor buyers who suffer. The local authorities and local residents suffer too. In view of the approaches to most of these sites, there are often problems, especially at weekends when the plots are visited by large numbers of owners with their


individual forms of transport. Furthermore, the sales of these plots of land generate a rash of small-scale development under article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973, and, even where planning control is involved, there is always difficulty in exercising it and in taking timely enforcement action.
When the land is split up for recreational purposes, the permitted rights still persist. They are often abused. The site becomes an area of sporadic picnic sites, caravans, camps and other forms of buildings, which ruin the natural state of the area to the detriment of the local environment and the landscape.
Furthermore, the use of the land for leisure is often contrary to the policies of the development plan. The sites are usually in areas where it is intended that the uses for agriculture and forestry should not be disturbed. In many instances there is a loss of effective farming and productive agriculture land. Where the land is woodland, there is a threat to its preservation and management in accordance with the principles of good forestry. There is also a substantial fire risk through picnickers lighting fires and not being able to control them. I ask my hon. Friend to consider also refuse collection and the disposal of sewage, and the practical and environmental problems that they present. Those uses also cause injury to wildlife. Where the area is of special scientific interest, the specific fauna and flora may be seriously damaged.
I ask my hon. Friend to agree that the normal planning control measures are inadequate to deal with those problems, the primary cause of which is the physical division of the land into plots. Planning powers at present have no relevance to land ownership. I am advised that to use land in one's ownership for personal enjoyment such as picnics, camping, relaxation or cultivation does not constitute development within the meaning of section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Furthermore, there is no planning control to deal with the consequent loss of effective farming and productive agricultural land or the threat to forestry caused through fragmentation of the land.
Will my hon. Friend also consider the problems of fire risk and the practical and economic difficulties of refuse collection and sewage disposal, which also cannot be dealt with by planning control. Neither planning nor highway and road traffic legislation can deal with the problem of increasing traffic using narrow approach roads that are public highways, particularly at weekends. Furthermore, I am advised that there is no planning method to prevent injury to wildlife and the flora that supports it.
Lastly, I come to a point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dwelt on in 1975. Article 4 directions are not wholly effective. They have to be made and approved by the Secretary of State before the permitted development takes place. The delay involved often lessens their effectiveness or even renders such directions useless. For the reasons that I have mentioned, and in regard to the uses that I have mentioned, such as picnics, camping, relaxation or cultivation, which do not constitute development, article 4 directions have no effect. They merely prevent development ancillary to the use. Furthermore, the liability for compensation in such cases seems an unfair burden on the local authority. The imposition of article 4 directions by the local planning authority does not protect the poor purchaser who has parted with his life savings, and does not help to control the development of the land. They are effective only after the land has been developed and the speculator has made off with his ill-gotten gains.
Even where article 4 directions have been made, the taking of enforcement action places a great burden on the local planning authority. The sites are often remote, and the plots are well hidden. Therefore, to detect and deal with contraventions and maintain control requires a large staff, involving considerable expenditure of time and money. At a time when we are endeavouring to identify waste and discover where economies can be made in local administration that must be questionable. I submit that the whole procedure of article 4 directions is not in accord with the Government's wishes to maintain a positive planning role. The planning enforcement procedures are too cumbersome to deal with the large numbers of small individual contraventions which, taken


together, constitute a serious injury to the environment.
I believe that the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the National Farmers Union and other representative bodies share my view that positive steps should be taken to stop this undesirable practice spreading.
I believe that the Government should pursue the question of control under the Fair Trading Act 1973, and consider reinstating the sale of land under the Trade Descriptions Acts of 1968 and 1972. Most important, I commend to my hon. Friend that the Government should also adopt the suggestion put forward by Mr. George Dobry, QC, that a change of use from agricultural or forestry to leisure use is a material change of use—positively requiring planning permission, and in this respect I remind the House of what Mr. Dobry said in his report "Review of the Development Control System":
 I would like to make one specific recommendation. I have evidence of a recent practice of selling leisure plots on the assumption that planning permission is not required. This naturally leads to serious objection from the public, as in practical terms a weekend invasion results, and substantial intense cultivation of the use of land takes place. Clearly this should be made the subject of planning control. Section 22(3) of the 1971 Act should be amended to provide (for the avoidance of doubt) that a change in the use of a separate plot of land from agriculture to ' leisure use ' would constitute development. 
Furthermore, in order to assist the Fair Trading Act, I believe that the Town and Country Planning Act should be amended to require planning permission to be obtained for the sub-division of land, as well as for development, except possibly for the sub-division of land for agricultural purposes, purely and simply, as opposed to agricultural purposes involving leisure, horticulture or some other use. To strengthen this, the definition of agriculture should be that used in the Agriculture Act 1947—that is, agriculture pursued as a trade or business—and not that used in the Town and Country Planning Act—where it is only an activity which could merely be carried out on a profit and pleasure basis as a hobby. It might be better to specify sub-division of ownership of land as requiring planning permission, rather than to include it in the definition of ' development '.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for attending the House at this late hour—though it is not as late as it might have been—and trust that he will consider that now is the time to take positive steps to control the abuse which fosters speculation of the most undesirable kind, leaves purchasers penniless, causes the loss of productive land and the disruption of viable agricultural units, and so allows some dubious people to drive a coach-and-four through our planning Acts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) for raising this subject. He had here to listen to him my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), for Ashford (Mr. Speed), for Faversham (Mr. Moate), for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Seven-oaks (Mr. Wolfson).
It is a subject which has concerned my hon. Friend for a long time and on which his knowledge is extensive. My Department has been grateful to him for the research that he has done on leisure plots and for providing a detailed dossier on leisure plot development.
I can well appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's concern. He illustrated graphically the situation of many people who have been misled—that is not too strong a wor\d—in this area. Leisure plot developments have caused anxiety to many who care about rural development, the amenity of unspoilt areas and the preservation of agricultural land. They have also caused great disappointment to many who have parted with money for something that proved not to be what they had hoped for.
In their farming policies, the Government are strongly committed to protecting the rural environment and safeguarding agricultural land from unnecessary development of whatever sort.
The increasing demand that we have seen for many years for leisure facilities in the countryside has added to the legitimate competing demands on scarce rural land. It is clear to us that my hon. Friend is right in saying that uncontrolled leisure plot development can have a destructive effect on the countryside.


That is clearly something which our planning system, designed as it is to ensure a proper use of land, should be controlling. Yet it has not been easy to control. My hon. Friend asked me to do something about that, and I assure him that I shall certainly look carefully at the matter.
There has always been the risk that planning would come on the scene only after the damage had been done. My hon. Friend has made it quite plain that he does not think that the present system of planning control is a satisfactory method of preventing speculators from taking advantage of ordinary people who simply want to acquire a small plot of land in the countryside where they can spend some of their leisure time. My hon. Friend has raised this matter at Question Time, and I hope I have reassured him that my concern, like his, is for the people who are outwitted in this respect. The person who has disposed of the land escapes scot-free, and the buyer who has parted with his money is left with so little. I do not pretend that the present system is ideal in this respect, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that he underestimates what planning authorities can already achieve if they are sufficiently vigilant about the possible development of leisure plots.
I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the significance of the decisions taken by the previous Secretary of State in March last year on enforcement appeals involving leisure plots on land at the Blackwater Estuary Estate, near Maldon in Essex. My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the inadequacy of article IV directions for controlling that kind of development. The Black-water Estuary decisions showed that the article IV direction is strictly irrelevant to the question whether the creation of a leisure plot from former agricultural land is development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and whether it is, therefore, subject to planning control.
The Secretary of State found on those appeals that the creation of those particular plots was a material change of use of the land from agriculture to leisure plots, and it amounted to development requiring planning permission. That does not mean that every leisure plot development will necessarily need planning permission

because, as the House knows, every planning decision is given on the basis of the facts of the individual case. But at least it shows that there are some circumstances in which the creation of leisure plots has to be regarded as development and, therefore, requires planning permission before it can take place.
I am bound to add that there has been a challenge in the High Court to the previous Secretary of State's decision, and we may have to look again at this question when we eventually receive the court's judgment. But, for the time being at least, that is our view on the matter.
I know that there is still particular concern amongst planning authorities in the Home Counties about leisure plots, and nowhere has that concern been expresed more strongly than by Kent county council. I understand why the council has decided to include in its Bill, which is now in another place, a clause which is intended to control the use of land as leisure plots by means of a licensing system which would be operated by the district councils. When that clause is considered by the Committee, we shall explain fully why we have serious doubts as to whether this is the appropriate way in which to deal with what is admittedly a very difficult problem of planning control. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham probably sees this as the answer. But there are many problems involved, particularly when one considers what the Government are trying to do in the introduction of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill which is now reaching its final stages in Committee. But, as I said, we shall return to the matter.
I shall not, therefore, try to anticipate now the consideration that will have to take place elsewhere. But I should like to point out that Kent county council's approach to this problem, however well-meaning, is bound to result in a system of control operating in parallel to planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the general development order. It is bound to produce a great confusion for all concerned, not least for a prospective purchaser of leisure plots, who would find it very difficult indeed, even with good legal advice, to decide how these two systems in practice affected the land that he was interested in acquiring. There may well


be occasions when land should be made available for this purpose.
In terms of what we are debating tonight, I accept the anxieties, but I make clear that in terms of leisure and the very desirable purpose for which some of these plots are bought, we must be very careful not to rule out altogether reasonable and responsible development. Hon. Members must not be led astray by the abuses which are being drawn to my attention tonight. I do not think that the approach that Kent county council has adopted is the right one in the circumstances, and I wonder whether it has properly considered the administrative consequences of its proposals, which seem to me to be little short of a bureaucratic nightmare, which none of my hon. Friends would really want.
What I have said so far will not provide great comfort to those who have paid for leisure plots on the basis of advertisements which have misled them. It seems to me comparatively rare now for advertisements to say directly that there is a possibility of planning permission for development, and hence a very large capital gain. But people are certainly led to assume that they will be able to fence off their patch of land and perhaps to park a caravan on it and use it for normal recreation purposes. Advertising for land is not subject to the Trade Descriptions Act. Reference was made to this by my hon. Friend. I do not want to stray into this subject, which is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
But in raising this debate, and in his other activities in this field, my hon. Friend performs the valuable service of calling public attention to the issue. By doing so he is increasing the public awareness of the risks of parting with money for these plots without proper awareness of the planning controls governing them. Equally, there is much to be gained from a wider awareness of the controls available to a planning authority if it is alive to developments in its area and reacts quickly.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to George Dobry's observations on this matter' in particular. We have been very grateful in Government for Mr. Dobry's advice on many other

matters in the planning field, and in the Bill that is before Parliament at this stage we have, taken considerable note of what he has had to say.
Equally, I believe that by drawing people's attention to this we can avoid the damaging effects of the worst leisure plot developments that have taken place. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about all this, but I have to tell him that the solutions are not quite as easy to find. That does not mean to say that we are not looking for them, and I hope he will accept from me that all the remarks he has made to me tonight, plus the attendance of his hon Friends, impresses upon us that there is a need to do something. I hope that he will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended.

Mr. Roger Moate: May I take advantage of these two minutes, left either deliberately, for which I thank the Minister, or inadvertently by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), to say a few words on this very important subject?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in raising the debate. It is a very helpful move to get the subject aired once again in the House. It is very frustrating that after many years still no solution has been found to it. It seems that there is a lack of desire by the officials in the Minister's Department to find a solution to this very real problem. Of course, one recognises that there are difficulties in legislation to deal with the problem, but one would have thought a solution could be found. He paid tribute to Mr. George Dobry for his work. Mr. Dobry in his report conclusively urged that there should be legislation to deal with the problem.
I was disappointed by the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary which seemed to suggest, again, that the Government's response is "We understand the dilemma and we want to curb the problem but we are afraid that this particular solution put forward by Kent county council is not the answer and therefore the Government will oppose it". That was the essence of what my hon. Friend had to say.
I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the proposal from Kent county council and at the answer given by his officials to see whether there is not some solution in the method proposed by Kent.
I do not think that my hon. Friend's answers were convincing. He seemed to suggest, first, that he wants to protect a certain number of leisure plots. He seemed to think that there were some good leisure plots and that the buyers of those plots needed protection. It may be that somewhere there are some good, desirable leisure plots, but all I can say to my hon. Friend is that we have not experienced them in Kent and I have not heard of anyone in other areas saying that they were desirable developments.
Yet that seemed to be what my hon. Friend was saying. In almost every area where we have experienced them, in areas of outstanding natural beauty, in woodlands, coastal sites or agricultural land, they are a bad development and should be controlled.
I think that my hon. Friend's argument that somehow the Kent proposals would impose a licensing and bureaucratic system—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past One o'clock.